Thursday, July 14, 2016

ANALYSIS: Shock appointment puts Boris Johnson on Middle Eastern collision course

Then-London mayor Boris Johnson salutes photographers as he rides bicycle in front of Burj Khalifa, world's tallest tower, during visit to Dubai (AFP)

Alex MacDonald-Thursday 14 July 2016

The surprise appointment of Boris Johnson as British foreign secretary has already raised eyebrows in some quarters, with politicians, analysts and media pundits questioning whether his famous buffooneries will make him a laughing stock on the international stage.

Forgoing the usual diplomatic niceties, French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault was quick to accuse Johnson of telling “lies” and having his “back against the wall”, while his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Johnson’s behaviour over Brexit had been “irresponsible”.

US State Department spokesman caught on camera trying not to laugh after getting the news, while Labour Party leadership hopeful Angela Eagle had to pause during a speech to turn away from the audience.

Mark Toner was

But it is in his dealings with the Middle East that many critics fear Johnson will fall particularly short.

A London-based Middle Eastern affairs analyst told Middle East Eye he was in shock and called him a "f***ing idiot”.

British dipl omats to Turkey, in particular, are believed to be scrambling. Johnson, whose great-grandfather was Turkish, was long seen as firm supporter of Ankara, but seems to have reversed his position.

In May, Johnson won a prize in the right-wing Spectator magazine, which he used to edit, for an obscene poem about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in which Johnsondescribed him as, among other things, a “w***er”, and also indicated that Erdogan fornicated with goats.

Earlier this week, prior to Johnson’s appointment, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildrim expressed his disappointment with the MP’s comments.

"May God help him and reform him, and I hope he won't make any more mistakes and tries to make it up with the Turks,” he told the BBC.

Perhaps more disturbing for Ankara are Johnson's past claims of sympathy for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is embroiled in a guerrilla war with the Turkish state and is listed as a terrorist organisation by the UK and US governments.

Speaking to ITV in December about the case of Silan Ozcelik, a British citizen prosecuted for attempting to join the PKK to fight against the Islamic State (IS) group, Johnson said he hoped that Ozcelik would avoid an "absurd punishment" and added that his "sympathies are very much with the PKK".

MEE contacted the Turkish government for a response to Johnson's appointment. None was forthcoming by the time of publication, but a Turkish official was quoted in the Guardian as saying there was "no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom will continue to treat PKK as what it is – a terrorist organisation”.

Turkey analyst Ziya Meral told MEE it was unlikely that the personal slight would lead to a major breakdown in relations between the two countries.

“Inter-state relationships go beyond particular individuals,” he told MEE.

“This is all the more so for British foreign policy machinery. While Johnson's personal influence will be limited, UK remains as one of the very few allies of Turkey in Europe and wider West, thus personal tensions won't impact formal relations.”

He added, however, in reference to Turkey seeking to join the European Union, that the UK’s vote to leave the EU, which Johnson supported, meant “Turkey is left with no major ally that is consistent on its membership. This makes Turkey's bid ever more distant.”

Michael Stephens, a research fellow for Middle East Studies at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told MEE that while it was initially a “draw-breath moment” to see Johnson appointed, he later concluded that Johnson was unlikely to effect any major changes in policy.

“Boris is very crude in the way he expresses his opinions - but if you look at what he’s saying, if you look at the policies he tends to adhere to, he doesn’t actually go against the main flow of what the government itself is saying,” Stephens said.

He described Johnson’s position on the region as “Tory globalist”, in the sense that he supported the Gulf states, was keen on Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdish nationalism more broadly, and made public denunciations of IS.

“I think what he’s essentially saying is that we needed to double down on our alliances with those people that we identify as allies, be less apologetic about them and follow those through,” Stephens said.

Johnson, however, may take a more conciliatory approach towards Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, compared with his predecessor Philip Hammond, some analysts say.

In an article for the Telegraph in December, Johnson wrote that although Russian President Vladimir Putin may resemble "Dobby the house-elf" of the Harry Potter movies, it would be the lesser of two evils to work with him and Assad to tackle IS in Syria - although Johnson also called for the establishment of “a timetable for Assad to step down and a plan for a new Syrian government.”

The Russian ambassador welcomes Johnson into the diplomatic fray

Later in January, in an article titled "Bravo for Assad", Johnson praised the Syrian president and his forces for retaking the historic city of Palmyra, while again referring to Assad’s government as “one of the vilest regimes on Earth.”

Writing on Thursday for Chatham House, MENA programme project manager Tim Eaton said that, considering his sympathetic words for Assad, "Johnson’s appointment is likely to concern the Syrian opposition, whose list of friends is small and diminishing".

He added that Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to appoint Johnson, who stood against her in the first round of the race to succeed David Cameron at Number 10 Downing Street, would "raise questions in the Middle East over her true position, and her judgement".

However, RUSI’s Stephens argued that if Johnson may be seen to have a more accommodating attitude towards Assad, this simply reflects the shifting position of both the UK government and its allies in the region.

“There is a general consensus that some form of the regime is going to stay,” Stephens said.

“The position on Assad is something that is constantly under review… If you notice that British government positions on Assad in the last 18 months have softened a little bit, so someone like Boris having the opinions that he does is not quite so unpalatable as perhaps if we had had this conversation in early 2014.”

He added it was inevitable that Johnson at some point would “make an absolute gaffe”.

Fans of the new foreign minister, however, have rushed to his defence, repeatedly calling him charismatic and saying he would breathe new life into foreign policy.

Sir Christopher Meyer, a former ambassador to America and Germany, told Sky News Johnson's appointment was “just what we [Britain] need”.

"There needs to be now a major retooling of our foreign policy, which flows from the referendum result and the fact that Brexit means Brexit,” he said.

The UK's former ambassador to France, Sir Peter Ricketts, also told media that Johnson was a "warm, charismatic" person and that people would “adapt to him very quickly”.

Johnson’s predecessor Hammond, who became chancellor of the exchequer in the reshuffle, also praised the Uxbridge and South Ruislip MP.

"And I think Boris will be very good in this job. Boris is a very big figure in the Conservative Party, he is a big figure in the country, he is a national figure,” he said.

But Johnson’s antics in the Middle East have already landed him in hot water with some critics.

In November, Johnson was forced to cut short a trip to the Palestinian territories after describing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as "completely crazy" and the preserve of a "few lefty academics."

He added that he thought it was absurd to boycott “a country that when all is said and done is the only democracy in the region, the only place that has in my view a pluralist open society".

As a result of his comments, the Sharek Youth Forum - the group that invited Johnson - said that he "fails to acknowledge our very existence as Palestinians".

On Thursday, the Times of Israel described Johnson as an "Israel backer", while Daniel Taub, an analyst and former UK ambassador to Israel, described him as a "very outspoken friend of Israel".

“He is a very enthusiastic supporter, and his relationship with Israel goes back a long way,” he told the Jerusalem Post.

Yet conversely, in what could be seen as an example of Johnson's notorious policy flip-flops, he used stronger words than then-prime minister David Cameron in condemning the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2014.

"I can’t for the life of me see how this can be a sensible strategy," he told BBC radio.

"I think it is disproportionate, I think it is ugly and it is tragic and I don’t think it will do Israel any good in the long run."

Johnson was also a supporter of the Iraq invasion in 2003, but has since become a critic, on a recent occasion describing former prime minister Tony Blair as "unhinged" and as showing "unbelievable arrogance" for refusing to take responsibility for the chaos that erupted after the war.

Labour leadership must stand up to intimidation and abuse

Cathy Newman-Thursday 14 Jul 2016

When I interviewed Johanna Baxter, a member of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee, last night, it was clear to me how upset she was about the abuse and intimidation she says she’s received. She’s normally a confident, self-possessed person, but last night she was trembling and holding back tears.

Ms Baxter says she’s received a couple of thousand emails urging her to put Jeremy Corbyn on the leadership ballot – a decision endorsed by the NEC at their meeting this week. What’s disturbed her is how many of those emails were threatening or abusive. She and some of her colleagues feel under siege.

In order to try and curb the intimidation, she argued forcefully for a secret vote on the issue at the NEC meeting, and was utterly appalled when Mr Corbyn opposed such a move. Despite his opposition, the vote was indeed held in secret, but the whole episode has left Ms Baxter shattered.

Hence her decision to speak to me on last night’s Channel 4 News. Afterwards, there was a lot of support on Twitter for her. But there were also rather too many abusive tweets aimed both at Ms Baxter and myself for having the temerity to give her a platform. Some of the tweets challenged me and her to produce the evidence of abuse and threatening behaviour.

I haven’t seen all the emails, but the ones I have are nasty enough.

One Labour member and supporter of Mr Corbyn wrote to her warning: “We know where you live.”

Corbyn himself has condemned this sort of intimidation and he and some of his supporters say they are also victims of appalling messages on social media but the number of people, especially women coming forward on the anti Corbyn side is overwhelming.

Another describes the 172 MPs who moved a motion of no confidence in Mr Corbyn as “backstabbing Blairite Red Tories”, “Tory Nazis” and “parasites” who “put greed before need”. The correspondent concludes: “Tell the rebel MPs get behind Corbyn or face deselection. We the real Labour voters will not vote for Champaign (sic) Labour corrupt backstabbing bastards.”

Another email lists members of the NEC predicted to “vote the right way”, in favour of putting Mr Corbyn on the leadership ballot, but singles out Ms Baxter and a colleague as those they’re “doubtful about”, urging recipients to “target” the pair via personal email, which is then revealed.

Another Labour party member begins “respectfully” but swiftly becomes rather more menacing. MPs who opposed Mr Corbyn have got it coming, it’s suggested. “I believe pickets would ensure that the plotters never had peace, ever again. There would be hecklers and cat-calls at every meeting,” it says.

Ms Baxter’s personal email and mobile number were tweeted out for all to see.

So there you have it: intimidating, yes. Abusive, yes. Acceptable? Absolutely not.

The backdrop of intimidation aimed particularly at female politicians is alarming. A brick was thrown through the window of Mr Corbyn’s leadership challenger Angela Eagle earlier this week – a fact I put to my Twitter trolls, some of whom then ventured the opinion that Ms Eagle had set the whole thing up.

Many MPs have been badly shaken after the death of the Labour backbencher Jo Cox last month. And now routine abuse online is generating a climate of fear.

British Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks with members of the media after attending a meeting of Labour's National Executive Committee in London on July 12, 2016. Britain's opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday won a crucial victory against rebels seeking to unseat him, after the party's executive committee ruled he would automatically be included on a leadership ballot. If Corbyn had not been automatically included, there were fears that he would have struggled to obtain the 51 nominations necessary from Labour lawmakers to stand. / AFP / CHRIS RATCLIFFE (Photo credit should read CHRIS RATCLIFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

Mr Corbyn insists he’s denounced the abuse many times, and has himself received death threats: “As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour Party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.”

Death threats against anyone are clearly appalling, but Mr Corbyn’s opponents say he has to take some responsibility for today’s nasty political culture – so far removed from the “kinder politics” he promised.

The MP Ian Austin tweeted last night: “His leadership & Momentum have unleashed hatred & threats we’ve never had before.”

The veteran MP Margaret Hodge believes it recalls the 80s and the fight against the Militant Tendency.

This afternoon, Owen Jones tweeted that he was the “senior journalist” quoted and his text does seem anodyne. But in the context of nastier material, it perhaps did pile on the pressure.

Whoever ends up leading Labour needs to root out the abuse, before loyal party stalwarts like Ms Baxter decide enough is enough, and give up on the whole thing.

Democratic values suffering steady erosion in the West

July 13, 2016, 12:00 pm

People pose for photographs with members of the New Black Panther party after they announced their intent to protest the death of Alton Sterling at the Baton Rouge Police Department Headquarters in Baton Rouge, Saturday, July 9, 2016 - AFP

With the steady rise of racial tensions in the US, close on the heels of the killing of two black men by the US police in Minnesota and Louisiana and the retaliatory gunning down of five white US police officers in Dallas, comes the disquieting news that support for Ku Klux Clan type organizations is on the increase in the US. In fact, there has been a notable addition to the number of such extremist outfits in the country.

It is against this general backdrop that current race related developments in the US should be assessed. Politicians such as Donald Trump are creatures of the spreading anti-minority sentiment in sections of the West and the recent killing of Afro-Americans could not have come at a worse time for the ‘world’s mightiest democracy’. There is no doubt that the anti-minority rhetoric of the US Right, spewed by the likes of Trump, has played a major role in intensifying anti-Black sentiments in the country. Their rhetoric, if not devalued and debunked quickly, sets the tone for future race relations in the US and this thought ought to be most discomforting for liberal-democratic opinion everywhere.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre in the US which monitors racist and hate groups in the country was quoted as saying that the number of these extremist groups had increased from 784 to 892 between 2014 and 2015, a 14 percent rise. This figure has doubled across the country since 1999 when the number of such outfits in the US was 457, the SPLC said.

So, extremist racial sentiment, in particularly the US South, is seeing a gradual increase in recent times, in tandem with a deterioration of white-black relations, and the observer is left to wonder whether parts of the US would be witnessing dramatic social disintegration in the teeth of race hate bred violence.

However, the current racial tensions in the US should not come as a surprise to those who have been witness to the steady rise of the extreme political Right in parts of Europe over the past decade or two.
The Brexit crisis is one of the most recent pointers to the substantial influence the extreme Right is beginning to exert on the politics of the West. But prior to Britain being caught up in this worrying wave, parts of France was engulfed by it and illegal immigration was one of the triggers to the Right’s rising political fortunes there. In Germany too, the Right is proving assertive in the face of refugee and immigration-linked tensions. The refugee influx from Syria, the Middle East and connected issues have tended to aggravate these divisions. In Britain, a rising social welfare bill, stemming from increasing migration, was a factor in the Brexit break-up.

But the general backdrop to the assertive rise of the Right in Western politics is the increasing threat posed to the West by religious fundamentalist violence of the kind perpetrated by the IS, the Al-qaeda and its affiliates. The rise of the Right in this situation is a negative fallout of the worst kind for the democracies of the West but is an exceptional boon for the Jihadists.

This is primarily because the resultant hostility towards Muslim minority groups by Western states and on the part of the majority communities in them, is utilized by Jihadist groups to foment disaffection among these minority communities against the states concerned. Thus, is the Jihadists’ recruitment pool steadily enlarged.

A siege mentality seems to have gripped sections of the West, including the US, and this climate of fear is being ruthlessly exploited by the Right to make out that white populations in the hemisphere are endangered by the presence of minority communities among them. This is the essential backdrop to the rise of political actors of the likes of Donald Trump in the US and Marie Le Pen in France, to take just two examples. It set the stage for the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox in Britain at the height of the recent Brexit-linked referendum campaign. Among other things, racial integration and unity are seen as a bogey by the Right. She was killed by a man who said from the dock that his name was, ‘I’ll not be a traitor to my motherland’, or something to that effect. More than shades of Natzism.

Therefore, if racial tolerance and unity together with social equality, for example, are seen as central to the project of building and consolidating democracy in a country, such values should be seen as being seriously endangered by the rise of the extreme political Right, which is, of course, averse to democratic norms and values.

These observations ought to help focus world opinion on the role sections of a country’s political and social elite play in rousing communal passions and in perpetuating ethnic prejudice and discrimination. That the far Right in the US, Britain and France, for instance, is doing just this is beyond dispute. But it is the considered opinion of this columnist that these observations are also generally true of the developing world, including Sri Lanka, in so far as the Right in these countries is also part of the ruling elite.

However, these tendencies that are harmful to democratic development cannot be glossed over or ignored by democratic opinion the world over. What ought to cause concern is that some of those wielding or hoping to wield political power within democratic countries, are openly critical and condemnatory of values and norms that are central to democracy.

Besides Trump, there is the case of President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, who advocates the killing of criminals and underground elements. Duterte did not campaign for his position on a racist plank but his open advocacy of the use of force by anyone against the criminal underworld has the same effect of undermining the core values of democracy. For, only the state and some of its agencies enjoy the right of exercising law and order powers.

This cannot be done by ordinary citizens. If they do so, the current anarchic tendencies of the world would be further aggravated.

Malaysia: US envoy to seek probe into mass graves

(File) An abandoned cage is photographed at a camp found in Wang Burma at the Malaysia-Thailand border outside Wang Kelian, Malaysia on Tuesday, May 26, 2015. Pic: AP

14th July 2016

THE U.S. will press the Malaysian government for a full probe into mass graves of suspected human trafficking victims in calling for officials who are implicated to be held accountable, said President Barack Obama’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the country.

The nominee, career diplomat Kamala Lakhdhir, made the commitment at her Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday.

She was put on the spot by Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who has criticized Malaysia’s record on human trafficking and the Obama administration’s decision two years ago to take it off a U.S. blacklist.

In May last year, Malaysian authorities discovered 139 suspected graves in a series of abandoned camps used by human traffickers on the border with Thailand where Rohingya Muslims fleeing Burma have been held.

SEE ALSO: Malaysia finds 139 graves of suspected Rohingya trafficking victims

The State Department has said the Malaysian government questioned several officials but did not prosecute any ofnlast year for complicity in trafficking crimes.

At least 28 camps were discovered along a 50-kilometer (30-mile) stretch of the Malaysian-Thai border.

The finding follows an earlier discovery by police in Thailand who unearthed dozens of bodies from shallow graves on the Thai side of the border. Malaysian police chief Khalid Abu Bakar confirmed that one of the graves was found just 100 meters from the mass grave found in Thailand.

The grim discoveries revealed a hidden network of jungle camps run by traffickers, who for years held people captive while extorting ransoms from their families.

This discovery came in wake of a mounting humanitarian crisis in Southeast Asia as tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fled persecution in Rakhine state in western Burma.

Additional reporting by Associated Press

Zika epidemic has peaked and may run its course within 18 months, say experts

Researchers have created a model of the virus, currently circulating in more than 35 countries in the Americas, to explore how the epidemic will play out

Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, responsible for transmitting dengue and Zika. Photograph: Felipe Dana/AP

Nicola Davis-Thursday 14 July 2016

The Zika virus epidemic in Latin America is likely to run its course within the next 18 months, according to a study by researchers in the UK and US.

Zika is currently circulating in more than 35 countries in the Americas and is primarily spread by mosquitoes. It is believed to cause the birth defectmicrocephaly, that results in babies being born with and unusually small head and possible damage to the brain, as well as the autoimmune disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome that can result in temporary paralysis.

But scientists say that the epidemic might have reached its peak.

Mosquito hunters: the health officials fighting Zika

Writing in the journal Science, researchers from Imperial College, London and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, describe how they have created a model of the disease to explore how the epidemic will play out. The model is based on surveillance data currently available for the Zika epidemic in Latin America, together with information on mosquito populations, plus data regarding similar, mosquito-borne viruses such as dengue.

The researchers say the findings suggest the current epidemic is likely to last for three years in total. “The three years counts for the transmission we have seen so far, and we have seen at least a year of very high levels of transmission,” said Neil Ferguson, lead author of the research from Imperial College, London. “So we are probably coming to roughly about the halfway point.”

After that, says Ferguson, further large-scale epidemics are unlikely to occur for at least decade because a large proportion of the population will be left immune to the virus in the wake of the current epidemic. That, he says, offers protection by “herd immunity” whereby there are too few people susceptible to the Zika virus for the disease to spread.

“The only way that can change is by new people who are not immune entering the population - and the way that has to happen is through births,” said Ferguson. “Basically an entire generation need to be born before you get a high enough fraction of the population now not immune [to Zika] to sustain transmission at epidemic levels.”

That, the researchers explain, means that although smaller outbreaks are possible, there is likely to be a long gap between epidemics.

“It is a good thing because we have time to develop new effective counter measures like vaccines and novel ways to control mosquito populations, but it poses some challenges as well,” said Ferguson. Among them, he says, is that by the time vaccines currently in development are ready to trial, there may not be enough cases of Zika in Latin America to test them against.

The researchers also warn that Zika is unlikely to be contained by current attempts to control mosquito populations. Moreover, they say, such measures could potentially extend the length of the current epidemic and shrink the time until the next one by slowing down, but failing to stop, the spread of the disease.

Eventually, the researchers suggest, the Zika virus could become endemic to Latin America.

“When it finally comes back the next [Zika] epidemic won’t be anywhere near as big as the one Latin America is experiencing now, but that also means there is a greater chance that it won’t burn itself out, which could lead to the virus being able to circulate in the human population year,” said Ferguson. But, he adds, “Whether Zika is capable of doing that we do not know at the current time.”

As well as the positive message that the virus should soon burn out, the authors also point out that local information is valuable if, for example, women are considering delaying pregnancy.

Rosanna Peeling, professor and chair of diagnostics research at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was not involved in the work, said such models of disease outbreaks can be extremely useful. Not only, she said, can they help scientists understand how a virus spreads through a population it has not previously infected, but they can also be used to explore the impact of various potential public health interventions.

But, she adds, while the new model predicts the current Zika virus epidemic will die down in the coming year or so “it will be still incredibly important that we continue to act now to develop better diagnostic tests, potential vaccines, and other tools that will help us bring the outbreak under control as quickly as possible.”

Ian Clarke, Zika Incident Manager at the World Health Organisation said, “Vector control is currently the most effective way to stop the transmission of Zika virus, chikungunya, dengue and yellow fever, which are also transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes.”

But, he adds, “much is still unknown about the circulation of the virus, how immunity might be developing, and other issues related to when and how the current Zika outbreak might end. The [new research] adds to the scientific community’s understanding of these issues.”

TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE: WHERE ARE THE CHAMPIONS?

Image courtesy TJ Sri Lanka

DR. PAIKIASOTHY SARAVANAMUTTU on 07/13/2016

There is no getting away from the issue of international participation in the accountability mechanism, specifically that of foreign judges. The 2015 Geneva resolution co-sponsored by the Sri Lankan government explicitly allows for this in terms of the active participation of internationals but does not spell out their precise role. The issue keeps surfacing with the highest in the land opining that there will not be any foreign judges on any special court. The President’s remarks have been echoed by the Prime Minister. He has always maintained that the decision of his previous government not to sign the Rome Statute has saved the necks of the former regime and clearly demonstrated his fidelity to national sovereignty. It is left to the Foreign Minister to engage in damage limitation from the perspective of the resolution, international and some domestic expectations. His explanation has been that the President has been voicing a personal opinion and that no decision on the issue has been taken. It will be taken after consultations with all stakeholders. Presumably it will also be taken some time into the future or at the earliest by the March 2017 sessions of the UN Human Rights Council at which there will be a comprehensive report and debate on the 2015 resolution.

The merits of categorizing Presidential remarks on such an important subject as “personal opinion” and one on which the President has been quite categorical in his rejection, aside, the Foreign Minister has an unenviable task of maintaining a status quo of expectations internationally and in part domestically, in the face of an apparently inhospitable domestic political climate. It remains to be seen how this circle will be squared if squared at all and as to how this will play with a victim –centred process of transitional justice. The issue after all from the perspective of victims and transitional justice is that if the accountability mechanism is exclusively domestic it will not be credible. The ethnic conflict aside, it should be noted that issues of trust and confidence in the local judiciary are by no means confined to the north and east, as reams of reportage and evidence will attest. The assumption that the change of regime has lifted the veil of darkness that misled every arm of the state under the authoritarianism of yore and that the ensuing light of governance ensures a paradigm shift to unimpeachable behavior by all arms of the state, just doesn’t wash with many in the north and east and probably in the rest of the country too. They may well be wrong, but it will take some time to demonstrate to them that they are.

The real issue though with the accountability mechanism, with transitional justice and indeed constitutional reform is the unwillingness and/or inability of the government to communicate to the people what it intends and why. On transitional justice, the focus such as there has been, has been on the accountability mechanism and on this, we have now been told – personal opinion or not – what the government does not want, rather than what it does. This feeds the opinion that transitional justice is a demand made by the western-dominated international community to which this government has supinely complied with, rather than a pivotal need identified by the government to found meaningful reconciliation and national unity upon.

Transitional justice and accountability in particular will always be controversial not least because it is susceptible in the public eye to the highly charged accusation of turning war heroes into war criminals. The government needs to make the point again and again that this is not the case and that investigations, prosecutions and convictions where warranted and with due process, will salvage the reputation of the armed forces as an institution and lay the matter to rest both nationally and internationally. The failure of the government to do this will only cede the space to its detractors to harp on the “negatives” of transitional justice rather than its positive and constructive contribution to reconciliation and unity.

Moreover, there is more to transitional justice than the accountability mechanism. Transitional justice conventionally rests on the four pillars of truth, accountability, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence. The government has already sent up legislation to parliament on a permanent Office of the Disappeared and has outlined in addition to this and the accountability mechanism, a Truth Commission and another for reparations. These may not be as controversial as the accountability mechanism, but they too require explanation as to their intended roles and functions and rationale. And what is needed is not a veritable Tower of Babel of explanations but a cogent and coherent statement of government policy which can be the basis of a public awareness campaign and for advocacy, as needed.

This is not something, as some in government aver, that civil society can do. Civil society does not have the reach that government has and more importantly, it is no substitute for government nor is it the information and/or propaganda arm of government. Strategic communication is the need of the hour, the national conversation between the government and the people, which sustains and reinforces the legitimacy of public policy.

It would indeed be a tragedy if transitional justice is dimly understood and vastly suspected as an imposition from outside, cravenly conceded and enacted by stealth. Perceptions matter most in politics and the government should not allow itself to be seen as if it is most, if not only concerned with a holding operation of keeping the Rajapaksa’s at bay, rather than building a new Sri Lanka on the promise made of governance, reconciliation and unity.

It would seem that with regard to transitional justice, whilst the government should be saying, “ we are the champions”, the public is left with the question of

“ WHERE ARE THE CHAMPIONS?”.

Democracy redefined

DR.Vickramabahu Karunaratne-2016-07-14

In the last period, world over, the decline of the Left's fortunes and the rampant success of the neoliberal integration was also concurrent with a growing crisis of bourgeois democracy, as more and more of the State's functions were taken out of democratic control and handed over to specialists, businesses, and unelected bodies. Millions of people, lost faith in Parliaments, began to boycott the electoral system. Party elites of right wing parties retreated into manipulations and changing alliances; having less and less to do with mass politics. In Lanka, Mahinda regime became a classic corrupt agent of MNC system; ministers such as Maithri who challenged the system were insulted and humiliated.

In the old Left which slaved for Mahinda, the result of this was that a generation of leaders emerged who were used as special advisers, think-tankers, policyspinners. Today they are useless even as fascistic agents without real understanding of how to motivate activists and communicate with the broad public. In government, they were all too often advocates of State policy against Maithri and others. As such, they were badly discredited among the Left party members and among young people radicalizing in response to fascistic oppression. New Left leaders emerged within the LSSP and CP who still understood how Left politics was done, while also having a sense of how to fuse these methods with social media communications. Joining with the NSSP they stood firm, ignited the Left base, and thousands hit the streets in defence of the democratic revolution, from the North to the South.

In the past it is Left politics that gave dedication and sincerity to the officials in the government service. In private sector too, the Left leaders in the work place set the example of honesty and forthright work to their colleagues. As such even masters respected the Left leaders in spite of trade union clashes. This tradition set by Left leaders in the work place was the base of Yahapalanaya everywhere. The decline of the Left with coalition politics gave space for bribery and corruption. Thus came the system, with the right amount of money passing hands, would have gained anybody anything that they wanted. In a way it became a new kind of democracy! No need of pleading to masters anymore; collect the right amount of money and you are through. Now this dream has gone. Yahapalanaya or the very notion of Yahapalanaya prevented the common man from his dream. On the other hand, it has crippled the corrupt officialdom. Does that mean, that today, hundreds, if not thousands of people, crowd the corridors of ministries and departments, going from one desk to another with no satisfactory answer to their burning questions?

Does that mean the radical ministers who resorted to violent protests are exposing a real problem in the present day society? There is no easy answer to the school admission problem of the day. Government says that they are taking steps to uplift all schools to the same level or at least to an equivalent status. That is a long-term solution; until then, what can the government do? Grieving parents are losing their patience; they are caught in a cruel cycle of corruption and Yahapalanaya. Radical violence did not give an answer. Still the Education Ministry did not tell the truth to the people. There is no escape from reality and if truth be told to the masses patiently and in a coherent manner then people will be prepared to share the limited resources available in a just manner. In the past, this was done by the Left leaders who had won the respect of friends and foes. Liberal leaders who want Yahapalanaya to survive and justice to prevail must allow the Left leaders to take the matter to the streets and confront the fascist elements who want to ignite so-called patriotic feelings that lead to racial violence. As in the past, explanations coming from the Left, whether the people paid complete attention or not, the relief these utterances would bring unto those who are subjected to, would be a fresh breeze that would calm their minds.

Alternatives
It is true that the political landscape in the country is changing and it is offering diverse alternatives not only to those who rule but more sharply to those who are ruled. Ranil explained that modern scientific discoveries have brought about rapid changes in the communication sphere and truth is available to all those who seek it. The present day youth, having got used to all the amenities of modern scientific discoveries, now look for understanding the 'inner content' of that scientific revolution, that really began with the industrial revolution and still continuing its relentless journey towards the end of time.
Yahapalanaya cannot underestimate the expectations of youth.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

UN urges Sri Lanka to stick to its commitments on accountability

July 13, 2016
The United Nations has yet again insisted Sri Lanka to stick to its commitments on accountability.

Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the UN Secretary-Generalsaid that there are agreements between Sri Lanka and the international community and Sri Lanka should stick to those agreements.

“There are issues between the international community and Sri Lanka and agreements to ensure accountability. And we hope those are followed,” he said.

He made the observation while responding to a reporter at a media briefing in New York to respond to reports that President Maithripala Sirisena has refused to agree to have international judges in the domestic accountability process.