Philippines' Duterte says China, Russia supportive when he complained of US

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte gestures while delivering a speech before female police officers during a gathering in Davao city, Philippines September 30, 2016. REUTERS/Lean Daval Jr

Sun Oct 2, 2016

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte said on Sunday he had received support from Russia and China when he complained to them about the United States, in another broadside that could test his increasingly fragile alliance with Washington.

Duterte said that during a meeting on the sidelines of a leaders' summit in Laos last month, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev had agreed with him when he railed against the United States.

"I met with Medvedev, I am revealing it to you now. I told him this is the situation, they are giving me a hard time, they are disrespecting me, they are shameless," Duterte said in a speech.

"He said 'that is really how the Americans are', he said 'we will help you'."

Duterte gave no further details about the nature of his complaints.

His ire towards the United States has intensified since U.S. President Barack Obama said he would raise concerns about his deadly war on drugs.

The White House cancelled a meeting between them in Laos after Duterte had called Obama a "son of a bitch".

Duterte said on Sunday he had raised objections about the United States to China also.

"China said 'side with us, you won't benefit'," Duterte said. It was not immediately clear which Chinese official he was quoting, and when the remark was made.

Duterte has said repeatedly during recent, frequent speeches that he planned to open new alliances with Russia and China, particularly for trade and commerce, as part of his pursuit of an independent foreign policy.

Several commercial and diplomatic sources have confirmed to Reuters that a Philippine business delegation will accompany Duterte on a visit to Beijing from Oct. 19-21.

DOUBTS OVER DEAL

In another swipe at Washington, the firebrand leader said he would review a landmark security deal agreed with the United States, arguing it may not be legally binding because no president had signed off on it.

Duterte's remarks show his intent to challenge or test the limits of a historic alliance that U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Thursday called "ironclad".

That came a day after Duterte declared joint U.S.-Philippines war games starting this week would be "the last".

The Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), signed a few days before Obama visited the Philippines in 2014, allows U.S. troops to build storage facilities for maritime security and humanitarian and disaster response operations.

It also gives broad access to Philippine military bases.

Duterte said the EDCA would be reviewed, because it was signed by the then Philippine defense secretary and the U.S. ambassador, and not the country's president.

Duterte did not explicitly say that he would seek for the deal to be scrapped, but in comments aimed at the United States, he said of EDCA: "It does not bear the signature of the president of the Republic of the Philippines..."

"Better think twice now, because I would be asking you to leave the Philippines altogether."

Under the programme, two C-130 transport planes and 100 U.S. servicemen have been at an air base in the central Philippines since Sept. 25 as part of a two-week exercise.

EDCA was seen by analysts as an agreement designed in part as a deterrent to ward off moves by China to advance its interests in the South China Sea.

Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, John McCain, has previously hailed EDCA as a landmark deal of the kind of significance "not witnessed in decades".

Any indication it could be halted would be a big setback for U.S. efforts to boost its influence in Asia and counter that of a fast-rising China.

Washington's defence agreements with the Philippines, its former colony, are more substantial than with any other country in Southeast Asia.

Duterte's comments come at a time when U.S. defence ties with Thailand, another traditional ally, have been temporarily scaled back following the military's 2014 coup.

EDCA faced a legal challenge from some Philippines lawmakers and activists concerned that it represented a challenge to sovereignty and would make the Philippines a launching pad for U.S. military intervention in the region.

The Supreme Court ruled in January this year that it was constitutional.

(Writing by Martin Petty; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

Trump supporters defend the GOP nominee as a ‘genius’ with taxes

A report in the New York Times says a $916 million loss in the '90s might have allowed Donald Trump to legally avoid paying any income taxes for almost two decades. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

By Philip Rucker and Jenna Johnson October 2 at 1:32 PM

Donald Trump’s campaign, reeling Sunday after a report that the business mogul may not have paid taxes for as many as 18 years after declaring a $916 million loss on his 1995 returns, mounted a vigorous defense by calling the revelation proof of the Republican presidential nominee’s “genius.”

A New York Times report late Saturday showed how Trump had used byzantine tax laws to cancel out income taxes after his real estate and casino empire nearly collapsed in the early 1990s, and the Times calculated that the resulting deductions may have allowed him to pay no federal income taxes for 18 years.

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Trump’s leading surrogates, fanned out across the Sunday political talk shows to defend their candidate — but they did not dispute the Times’s findings, nor has Trump’s campaign.

“He’s a genius — absolute genius,” Giuliani said on ABC’s “This Week.” “This was a perfectly legal application of the tax code, and he would’ve been a fool not to take advantage of it.”

The revelation about Trump’s taxes capped perhaps the most difficult week of his general election campaign — from his shaky debate performance and drop in the polls to his feud with a former Latina beauty queen over her weight gain and erratic 3 a.m. tweets Friday, to his unfounded speculation in a rambling speech Saturday night that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton may have cheated on her husband.


Following a New York Times report alleging that Donald Trump could have avoided paying federal income taxes for 18 years, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Oct. 2 said Trump’s handling of tax laws was “genius.” (The Washington Post)

[As news of Trump’s taxes breaks, he goes off script at a rally in Pennsylvania]

“What we’re seeing is somebody who’s blowing himself apart in real time,” said Peter Wehner, a strategist and scholar who served in the administrations of the last three Republican presidents. “It’s a pretty extraordinary thing to see. It’s a political death wish, as if at some deep level he doesn’t want to be president.”

Wehner added, “It’s gnawing on him that he could become what he has contempt for, and that is a loser.”

Mo Elleithee, a Democratic strategist who runs Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, said, “Political operatives and strategists are going to study this week for generations as the textbook case of self-sabotage.”

The Times, which obtained Trump’s 1995 tax records, reported that Trump may have taken advantage of special rules for real estate investors that legally allowed him to use his $916 million loss to offset $50 million a year in future taxable income for as many as 18 years.

Trump’s year-by-year returns would show how much he paid in federal income taxes, but he has refused to release them. For decades now, all presidential nominees have released years worth of tax returns, including Clinton.

The Clinton campaign and its supporters moved Sunday to exploit the tax discovery to underscore their central argument against Trump, which is that he is unqualified and temperamentally unfit to be 

president, and to argue that he took advantage of rules that ordinary workers cannot.

Donald Trump is seen above the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in 1995 after taking his flagship Trump Plaza Casino public. (Kathy Willens/Associated Press)

Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said Trump has “spun out of control.”

“We see Donald Trump is having to defend the fact that he may not have paid taxes for 20 years, which is something most Americans don’t have the option to do,” Mook said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

[As news of Trump’s taxes breaks, he goes off script at a rally in Pennsylvania]

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who has sparred with Trump over his taxes and business record, issued a caustic statement on Sunday about the Republican nominee.

“Trump is a billion-dollar loser who won’t release his taxes because they’ll expose him as a spoiled, rich brat who lost the millions he inherited from his father,” Reid said. He went on to call Trump “a racist, incompetent failure who managed to lose a billion dollars in a boom year.”

Trump’s surrogates offered a different assessment. Giuliani and Christie each used the word “genius” to describe Trump’s management of his taxes.

Christie, who chairs Trump’s presidential transition project, proclaimed on “Fox News Sunday” that “this is actually a very, very good story for Donald Trump.”

“What it shows is what an absolute mess the federal tax code is, and that’s why Donald Trump is the person best positioned to fix it,” the governor said. “There’s no one who’s showed more genius in their way to move around the tax code.”

Asked by Fox anchor Chris Wallace whether there were any apologies for Trump’s apparent avoidance of paying taxes, as reported by the Times, Christie was unrepentant.

“Oh, for gosh sakes, no apologies for complying with the law, and taking a bow for the fact that he has said well before this story came out that we should change the tax laws,” Christie said.

Trump’s tax plan — which would cut rates for high-income people like him and eliminate the “carried interest” loophole that benefits hedge fund managers, among other things — does not address the rule he may have taken advantage of. He and his campaign have not yet said whether Trump plans to eliminate or change it.

[The New York Times risked legal trouble to publish Donald Trump’s tax return]

Giuliani had a fiery exchange with host Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union,” in which the former mayor argued that Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to exploit every tax advantage available to him. The two men often shouted over each other, with Giuliani insisting that Trump could have been sued if he had not applied his 1995 loss to future tax returns.

“There are not very many smart businessmen who don’t take advantage of the tax — legal tax laws that are there,” Giuliani said. “And if they are, then they’re not very good businessmen, and no one wants to go into business with them and they don’t have very good lawyers, and they don’t have very good accountants.”

Central to Trump’s candidacy has been the idea of him as a successful businessman. Political analysts said the revelation that he declared a nearly $1 billion loss when his real estate company almost collapsed threatens to undercut his credibility in business.

“People can look at this little bit of evidence and now question his business acumen,” Elleithee said. Secondly, he said, it is an example of Trump benefitting personally from a system he has railed against. “His whole argument is that there are too many people in the establishment that are using the system to screw the little guy.”

Clinton’s supporters held up Trump’s apparent ma­nipu­la­tion of tax laws to avoid paying taxes as an example of inherent unfairness in the tax code, which allows billionaires to use loopholes that they said were unavailable to ordinary workers.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on CNN that this is “exactly why so many millions of Americans are frustrated, they’re angry, they’re disgusted.”

“You’ve got the middle-class people working longer hours for low wages — they pay their taxes, they support their schools, they support their infrastructure, they support the military,” Sanders said. He added, “Trump goes around and says: ‘Hey, I’m worth billions! I’m a successful businessman! And I don’t pay any taxes. But you — you make 15 bucks an hour — you pay the taxes, not me.’”

WORLD VIEW: More peace or more war?

By Jonathan Power-September 27, 2016

THE LAST  war in the Western hemisphere came to an end Monday, Sep. 26, with the signing of the formal peace treaty between Colombia and the FARC rebels, a conflict that has raged on and off for 50 years.

Fortunately, the cities have been spared overt destruction- it was the army and individuals who were targeted.

The image of a rescued child in Aleppo that circled the world

In Syria, even though the war has lasted only 5 years, in some cities, such as Aleppo, the bombing and fighting have wrought almost total destruction.

Is the world going to hell in a handbag? If one looks at Colombia the answer is “no”.

Moreover, Latin America has long been the most peaceful of all continents. Only East Asia rivals it.

Africa after decades of civil wars, at one time being the most violent of all the continents, is increasingly peaceful.

If one looks at the Middle East- Syria, Iraq and Yemen the answer is a loud “yes”. So too in South Asia- in Afghanistan and to a certain extent in Pakistan and in Kashmir, divided between India and Pakistan.

This last three years the “yeses” have it. For the first time since the end of the Cold War and the subsequent fast fall in regional conflicts the number of those killed in war has taken a sharp turn up.

In 2010, such had been the rate of fall in conflicts since the end of superpower competition, when mucking and muddling in the Third World was an everyday habit, the number of wars reached a record low.

Since then they have started to occur with greater frequency. However, the number is still a good way below its high during the Cold War years and the World War years of the last century.

Will the graph continue to go up? It is doubtful, I think. Nowhere else in the Middle East looks like bursting into flames.

Pakistan-IndiaAfrica should stay peaceful, although the impending elections in the Congo will doubtless bring about rioting.

The one big danger is Pakistan and India. Will they go to war over Kashmir?

Recently,  after years of quiescence, there has been a flare up in fighting. Nevertheless, since both sides have nuclear weapons it would be catastrophic to raise the temperature too high, and both sides know it.

Public opinion is ignorant of just how much violence has declined over the last 400 years. From the seventeenth century until the twentieth the percentage of the world’s people who died from warfare declined from 3% of the deaths in the century to 0.7%. Judging by the historical record of the 21^st century thus far, it is the least violent century of all. Despite Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria, there are less people being killed in war than ever before.

Mass killing- genocide- has become rarer and rarer. Not since the war in Bosnia in the 1990s and the Rwanda pogroms of 15 years ago has there been a genocide.

Nor are the number of coups increasing, although this year’s events in Turkey remind us that even a functioning democracy is not immune from a near-successful attempt. The heyday of attempted coups was in the mid-1960s when nearly 15 took place every year.

In the 2000s that fell to less than five a year. A recent article in The Economist asked why there should be a decline and reasoned it is because of the world becoming more prosperous. Poor growth rates, it said, make coups more likely.

This month the big question is how to stop war, in particular how can war in Syria be mediated first to a truce and then to a solution. Is it too late- or perhaps too early- for negotiations to succeed?

According to Oslo’s Peace Research Institute, until 1989 victory for one side in a civil war was common (58%). Today victory is much rarer (13%), although in one dramatic case after a long drawn out war the Sri Lankan government defeated its Tamil rebels in 2009.

UN peacekeepingNegotiated endings have jumped from 10% to 40%.

Over the last two decades UN peacekeeping and its high-powered mediators, have become more ubiquitous, experienced and effective.

This has certainly been a major reason for successful peace-making. So has the effort to cut off funding to militias. UN troops should now be deployed in Ukraine and should have been, deployed in Syria, right at the beginning of the conflict.

No one can at this stage tell if peace can be brought to Syria, as it has been to Colombia.

Is Syria going to be one of the 40% with a negotiated ending?

The UN’s Security Council must act in unison. The effort made over the last two weeks has been squalid. Russia (accused of being the main culprit in sabotaging the truce) and the US have no choice but to bury their enmity and try again.

Thai professor appointed as UN’s first expert on LGBT issues

UN's new independent expert on LGBT issues. Pic: AP.

 1st October 2016 

THE United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council has named Thailand’s Vitit Muntarbhorn, an international human rights expert, as its first independent expert to investigate the violence and discrimination faced by the LGBT community.

In his newest role, Vitit will have a three-year mandate to look into abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people.

SEE ALSO: Thailand proposes dedicated prisons for LGBT inmates

Vitit, who is an international law professor at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, has served on several UN bodies, including the council’s Commission of Inquiry on Syria, and was also the special rapporteur on North Korea and on child prostitution and child pornography.

Previously, he co-chaired a meeting of experts that adopted the Yogyakarta Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

SEE ALSO: Vietnam, South Korea, Mongolia back United Nations watchdog for LGBT rights

The UN agreed on the LGBT-focused role in June, after the 47-member council voted to adopt the resolution, with 23 nations in favor and 18 against with six abstentions.

Human rights experts have welcomed the appointment.

Human Rights Watch’s Geneva director, John Fisher, said on Friday that Vitit’s appointment “made history” and “will bring much-needed attention to human rights violations against LGBT people in all regions of the world.”

SEE ALSO: Transgender activist takes on Thai university in battle for LGBT rights

In a comment to Reuters on the newly-created role, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) said it would help give justice to LGBTI people who have been attacked, abused or discriminated against.

“Never has there been a more urgent need to safeguard the human rights of LGBTI persons around the world,” said ILGA executive director Renato Sabbadini in a statement to the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

In a 2015 report on crimes against LGBTI people, the UN found that hundreds of LGBTI people have been killed and thousands more injured over the past few years, in attacks ranging from knife attacks to stoning.

Additional reporting from Associated Press

Utah Zika Case Shows Physical Contact Can Spread The Virus

Zika virus was spread through physical contact in Utah case.


Anna Almendrala- 09/29/2016

Back in July, a 38-year-old Utah man was diagnosed with the Zika virus, even though he hadn’t traveled to a Zika-affected region or had sexual contact with someone who did.
Experts were puzzled.

They knew that Zika virus was transmitted in only one of four ways: from the bite of an infected mosquito, from sexual contact with an infected person, from contact with infected blood, or from pregnant mother to fetus in the womb. They also knew that Salt Lake City, Utah is not a hospitable environment for the Aedes Aegyptimosquito, which transmits the virus easily.

The man’s only contact with someone who had Zika was a hospital visit to see a 73-year-old friend with the virus ― a visit that occurred seven to 10 days before the younger man’s symptoms began. Without wearing gloves, he had helped a nurse re-position his friend and had wiped the man’s eyes. That was it: There was no other contact with blood or other bodily fluids.

So did he really get the virus from touching a patient? The answer appears to be yes, but there are a lot of caveats.

Tears or sweat might transmit the virus, but researchers can’t be sure

In a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Sankar Swaminathan of the University of Utah School of Medicine concludes that the younger man likely contracted Zika virus from his older friend, who shortly died. However, Swaminathan and his fellow authors aren’t sure how the transmission occurred. One possibility is that it happened because the man wasn’t wearing gloves and came into contact with his friend’s sweat or tears.

Swaminathan, who treated both men in Utah, emphasized that his report does not definitively implicate contact with sweat or tears as a way to contract the Zika virus.

“We can’t conclude anything because we really just don’t have firm evidence of how it was transmitted,” he said. “This doesn’t change any recommendations from the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], or what the real risk factors are for people to get Zika: traveling to a Zika-endemic area or having sex with a person who has been in an area like that.”

“We just don’t want to create alarm that Zika virus is easily translated from person to person,” he concluded. “We just don’t think it is.”

The original patient had an unusually high viral load 

The facts of the case are unusual for even more reasons. For one, the original patient, who had likely contracted the Zika virus while visiting Mexico, had an unusually high concentration of the virus in his body: Doctors measured it as about 200 million copies of the virus per millimeter of blood. Research on the typical viral load of Zika virus is still forthcoming, but to give a sense of how unusually high this concentration is, Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, an HIV and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA School of Medicine and Public Health, pointed out that someone with HIV only has about 50,000 to 100,000 copies of HIV per milliliter of blood.

The patient may have had unusually large amounts of virus in his body because he had been undergoing treatment for prostate cancer before he contracted Zika virus. The presence of cancer, his age, and the radiation and hormone therapies he underwent may have all worked together to make his Zika infection unusually virulent, resulting in his rapid deterioration and death, said Klausner. In fact, his death in and of itself is unusual, as the disease is typically mild or even symptomless for most people.

This high viral load may have resulted in the presence of the virus in bodily fluids where it usually isn’t present, leading to the other man’s subsequent infection. Patient 2 did not have any underlying medical conditions and was not immunocompromised in any way, Swaminathan said.

“We know the amount of virus in the original patient was extremely high, so it’s not surprising that perhaps with such a high amount of virus, body fluids not generally considered to be high risk for spreading infection could be infectious,” Klausner concluded. “It does just speak to a need to routinely employ universal precautions when being potentially exposed to any potentially infectious material.”

What this means for the rest of us: probably nothing

The young man’s case is remarkable because of how unusual it is, but it probably doesn’t have any further implications for transmission in other parts of the world, said Klausner, who was not involved with the case but did review Swaminathan’s report.

Klausner expressed dismay that the man didn’t take standard precautions, such as wearing gloves or face masks, when visiting his infectious friend in the hospital. But he also pointed out that the event is extremely rare, and that there is no need for the general public to be alarmed that Zika virus could be spread through casual physical contact.

As for the rest of us, we can prevent the spread of Zika virus by not traveling to regions where Zika virus is spreading locally, and by making sure that our properties don’t harbor standing water that could invite or nurture a mosquito infestation. If we do live or travel in an area affected by Zika virus, preventing mosquito bites and using condoms consistently and correctly during each sexual encounter can limit the risk of getting or transmitting the disease. 

SRI LANKA: IT WAS A SCARY EXPERIENCE TO BE DETAINED AND QUESTIONED EVEN BRIEFLY – RUKI FERNANDO

( Ruki Fernando, a well known sri Lankan HRD has been gagged  re his earlier arrest by the authorities for more than two years now; image ©s.deshapriya)

by Ruki Fernando.-02/10/2016

Today, 1st Oct. 2016, I came the Bandaranayake international airport in Sri Lanka to travel to London. I was asked by the officer at the immigration counter to get clearance from an office I understood to be an office of the Terrorist Investigation Department (TID), situated next to the immigration counters. Inside this office, I was questioned whether I have a case pending, where I was traveling, purpose of my travel, my work and personal details, including addresses and phone number, details of family members etc. An officer wrote down my answers, but I was not shown what was written and I was not asked to sign any documents. Photocopies of my travel documents were also made. They also appeared to examine a file they had.

While I was being questioned, other officers appeared to be checking from the TID head office in Colombo whether to allow me to proceed to my flight or not. They appeared to be trying to expedite the process to ensure I will not miss the flight.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s department and TID head office has been contacted through my lawyers. One of my lawyers who was also traveling overseas and had cleared immigration already, requested to come into the office I was being kept to speak to me and officers who were questioning me. But she was not allowed and had to stand outside while I was being questioned.

This appeared to be a violation of recent recommendation of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka to strengthen suspects access to lawyers, especially by providing access before statements are recorded.

Finally I was informed that I was free to travel. I asked the officer in charge what was the reason I was detained and questioned. He pointed out there was very limited time left for my flight and suggested I proceed to the flight rather than discuss this further and risk missing my flight. I then left towards the boarding gate with my lawyer.

The officers questioning me were polite and didn’t physically harass or threaten me. But it was a scary experience to be detained and questioned even briefly, especially given my past experiences of being detained, questioned, threatened etc. And to know that I was still under close scrutiny and not able to travel overseas for human rights work without harassment and intimidation. After long tense journey, I have now arrived safely in London.

Background:

I was traveling to deliver several talks on transitional justice and human rights at events organized by the Centre for Applied Human Rights at the University of York in UK and several other human rights related meetings.

I’ve been subjected to an ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Terrorism Act since March 2014 (case no. B4414/08/14). This is after being arrested, detained and released by the TID in March 2014. A court order that TID had obtained in March 2014 continues to restrict my freedom of expression and my confiscated electronic equipment had not yet been returned. My lawyers have made several written submissions and oral representations to the Attorney General’s department but there is no update in closing the investigation against me, returning the confiscated equipment and removing the gag order.

From March 2014 to July 2015, I had to obtain court permission for each of my overseas travels. Despite obtaining court permission, I encountered delays at the airport. On one occasion, I was not allowed to board the flight and and was only allowed to travel overseas the next day, after additional interventions of my lawyers. Based on an application I made to Colombo Magistrate Courts through my lawyers, this travel restriction was lifted by courts in July 2015. Since then, I had traveled overseas several times, without being stopped or questioned by the immigration or any other officials. It remains a mystery why the immigration suddenly had to get permission from TID again to allow me to travel overseas and why I had to be detained and questioned before being allowed to travel.

War & History: Sharing Some Thoughts

By Charles Ponnuthurai Sarvan –October 1, 2016

Prof. Charles Sarvan

I am neither a military analyst nor a military historian. I have read but little on military matters, and what follows are very much the thoughts of a layman. As a student of Literature, my concern has been with the victims, and not with the so-called makers of History. My sympathy has been with the Trojans and not with the victorious Greeks; with devastated Carthage and not with proud, imperial, Rome; with the Native Americans, and not with the Europeans who dispossessed and decimated them; though not at all an anti-Semite, I am with the Palestinians and not with the bullying Zionists. Isaiah Berlin in his ‘An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History’ observed that “history normally deals with important, political, events. The ‘inner’ events are largely forgotten, yet it is they “that are the most real, the most immediate experience of human beings; they, and only they, are what life, in the last analysis, is made of”. (The main title of Berlin’s essay is The Hedgehog and the Fox.)

To glorify war is to glorify death and destruction; to glorify war is to glorify wounds, both of body and mind; to glorify war is to glory in the inflicting of suffering and sorrow. The victorious Duke of Wellington seeing the carnage on the battlefield of Waterloo said that the next saddest thing to losing a war is winning it. In certain circumstances, war can be a sign of failure: the failure of negotiation and compromise; the failure of reason and justice. Sun-tzu (BCE 380-316) in his Art of War writes that the greatest military victory is one that is won without a battle. Given this attitude, it’s not surprising his treatise is also known as ‘a Book of Life’.

If language arises from the wider (external and internal) reality, that reality can also be conditioned by language. Once, some students were taken aback when I asked them whether it was alright to kill fellow human-beings. I then inquired whether it was good to kill the enemy, and their indignation turned to discomfort. Visiting St Paul’s Cathedral in London, a place of religious worship, one finds monuments to those who had killed natives who were defending their homeland: the greater the massacre, the greater the glory. The change in classification from “human being” to “enemy” licenses violence, and can incite cruelty. By way of example, I cite from the Guardian newspaper (London, 25 December 2015) which describes a hall packed with Jews cheering the death of a Palestinian toddler murdered in an anti-Palestinian ‘hate crime’. The video, filmed at a wedding, shows guests “dancing with guns and firebombs and stabling a picture of Ali Dawabshe who died with his parents in an arson attack on their home”. (One is reminded of Sri Lanka’s Black July,1983.) Yet some at that wedding celebration would probably jump into the water or fire, instinctively, to rescue a toddler who was unknown to them.

Read More

‘Truth lies in our utterances

Tamil pontificator Wigneswaran declares federalism is also the solution for the Sinhalese

In an interview with Nation, Northern Province Chief Minister CV Wigneswaran shared his thoughts and views on the Ezhuga Thamizh (Tamils arise) event which evoked mixed to negative responses from the South.

By Arthur Wamanan -

Oct 1, 2016

Following is the full interview: 

Q : What is the reason behind organizing such an event at this juncture?

The majority of the Tamils believe that our rights are going to be sacrificed at the altar of convenience soon. Till today nothing concrete regarding what rights the Tamils are to receive under the new constitution have been conveyed to us. If there is going to be secrecy in formulating the proposals either the Sinhala community or Tamil community or both are going to feel cheated at the end of it. We, Tamils, may feel not enough. The Sinhalese may feel it is a sellout. Therefore hatching a constitution in secrecy with selected members from the Tamil community would not help us Tamils. We need to bring the debate on the constitution into the open. The Sinhalese and Tamils must know what the constitution is going to give our people. You cannot try to hurry through a constitution if it is to last long. Passing a constitution to please Geneva next March would not help even the international community.

A mirage has been created among the international community that the Tamil community has compromised on their basics as set out in successive manifestos of the TNA.The true state of affairs on the ground is quite different to what is made out to the international community.

It is to explain such state of affairs in the North, Eastern Provinces to our Sinhalese brethren and the international community that a demonstration of this nature was found necessary.

Q: Don’t you think that an event like this would be perceived negatively in the South?

Why should they think negatively? The Sinhalese are more knowledgeable now with regard to our past. Even if that be so, that they perceive negatively, we intend making the Sinhalese community realize the fraud that has been perpetrated by the southern politicians on their people so far by equating federalism with separation. Federalism promotes unity. Separation divides the people. We are standing by our request for a federal constitution since that would be a way of reducing the hegemonic authoritarianism presently practiced by the Centre.

Q:The event has resulted in some negative reaction from the South where certain segments of the community have expressed concerns that this would once again lead to division among the people. What would you like to say?

If there is open debate and discussion among the Sinhalese people about the feasibility of federalism for Sri Lanka I am sure the truth of federalism would be understood by the Southern polity. The negative reaction you refer to has come about by wrong understanding. The Buddha in the Kalama Sutra said do not accept because someone says so.Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One’s own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one’s feelings. Find out for yourself the truth. If the Sinhalese take the trouble to find out the truth about federalism I am sure they would come by the truth which is that federalism is the only plausible solution to the problems of the Sinhalese and Tamils politically.

Your reference to once again lead to division among the people is amusing. Don’t forget it was the war that came to an end in 2009. The conflict continues even now. Our problems still need attention and resolution. Our divisions have continued. Former president Mahinda Rajapaksa kept it repressed. We thank His Excellency the present President for giving us the freedom to utter what we always wanted to utter. The truth lies in our utterances.

Q:The TNA has also distanced itself from the event. Does it mean there is a rift between you and the party leadership?

That is not correct. Mavai, the leader of the Federal Party, has said they approve of the demands of the demonstrators. But they were not sure this is the ideal time to demonstrate when a solution is in the offing. Our response to that has been that if a proper solution is forthcoming we would welcome it wholeheartedly. But if not, what next?  The Constitution might be passed soon and we would have no basis of criticizing at that stage. I remember the late C. Suntharalingam arguing in the Supreme Court that the 1972 Constitution was detrimental to the Tamils. My friend Mark’s father HNG Fernando was the presiding judge.  HNG said the Constitution has not come to pass. It is too early to determine. Mr. Suntharalingam said if it is passed it would be too late. The SC dismissed his Application. When it was passed C. Suntharalingam came back again into the Supreme Court. HNG said they who had been appointed under the Constitution could not now go against the Constitution.

Additionally, Hon Sambandanhas said he approves anything done in the long-term interests of the Tamils. So, you have got it all wrong. We are all together in the fight for emancipation of the Tamil speaking people.

Q :On other issues, there is a concern over the issue of drug and alcohol addiction among the youth. What can the NPC do to tackle this issue?

Even though Police powers to some extent have been given to the Provinces under the Thirteenth Amendment, it is the Centre which runs the Police Force entirely in the Province. Even the 200-odd junior grade Tamil officers that were promised to us have still not been recruited into the Northern Provincial Police Force.

There is not a single Tamil speaking Police Officer above the rank of ASP in the entire Police Force in the Island today except one in Jaffna who will soon retire.

The Army is all powerful keeping over one lakh (100,000) of soldiers in the North. There was no drug menace before May 2009 in the North. That is accepted even by the Government Department dealing with drug abuse. Therefore, we depend on the goodwill of the Police Force to deal with the situation. But we are bringing awareness among our people regarding the deleterious effect of drugs.

Q:There are also reports of small armed groups such as Awa group, involved in several criminal activities and violence. Has the NPC taken steps to make sure that this is addressed? Any strategies that would ensure the youth do not involve in such activities in the long run?

The answer is the same as given to your previous question. AWA Group and others are the relics of the past administrations. We are thankful to the new IGP for taking prompt action against the said group.What we can do is only at the societal level not at the police level. Nevertheless, I have started closer Police Civil Society cooperation at three levels – Provincial, District and grassroots, to bring about coordination and cooperation between Police and the civil society to prevent crime and deal with them effectively.

DELIVERING ON SRI LANKA’S PROMISE OF VICTIM-CENTERED TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE

(A mother waiting for her disappeared son participating protest in Colombo, Aug 2016 ©s.deshapriya; in Vanni they are still facing military intimidation)

by Shreen Saroor.-01/10/2016

Three examples of recent  intimidations

On 25th August, a mother who claims her son was abducted by military police seven years ago was visited by military officers.  The officers told her that her son would be released after she signed some papers.  They drove the mother for a long distance and kept her in custody while demanding the wife of the abducted person to meet with them. On 27th the old mother was dropped back near her home.  The officers warned her not to talk about what happened and assured her that her son would be released in a couple of days.  He has yet to be released.

On 19th September, a campaigner for the disappeared was stopped in Kilinochchi by two military men in an unmarked motorcycle while she was trying to visit a local family.  The men pushed her from her bicycle, groped her chest, and threatened her not to continue her human rights work.

On 25th September, a military rape survivor who has bravely spoken out was arrested for allegedly selling beer.  She was badly beaten while the police was trying to arrest her.  When her son (age 16) tried to stop the police from assaulting his mother, he was also arrested and beaten. Both of them are now charged for assaulting police officers and locked up for 14 days.

Shreen Saroor: constitutional reforms are an important part of the process, however, such reforms should not undermine accountability

These are just three recent examples of the attempt to silence women who bravely stand to demand truth and justice in Sri Lanka.  They are the stakeholders transitional justice in Sri Lanka is supposed to reach out.  While the Consultation Task Force has increased women’s representation and allowed a range of perspectives to be heard, it has so far not been successful in getting the actual decision makers in the Government to adequately address the affected women’s security concerns.

For example, war-affected communities have long highlighted the lack of effective witness protection, a prerequisite for broad participation in transitional justice mechanisms.  A victim and witness protection act passed in February 2015, and a protection authority has been established, but the authority lacks independence and includes senior government officials who are widely believed to have obstructed prosecutions in human rights cases in the past.

In co-sponsoring the resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council in October 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka committed to a “comprehensive approach to dealing with the past” through mechanisms and processes to ensure truth, justice, reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence.  Moreover, the Government also committed to a victim-centered approach, promising “broad national consultations with the inclusion of victims and civil society, including non-governmental organizations, from all affected communities, which will inform the design and implementation of these processes.”

Commitments not implemented

So far, the Government has failed to fully implement its own commitments. In mid August Parliament passed legislation establishing the Office of Missing Persons (OMP), but the bill was prepared in secret before the Consultations Task Force had even started consulting with victims and witnesses. The limited consultations that did occur before the bill was passed were problematic, allowing only a few victims to share their stories in an extremely short time period, not a chance to offer input on the OMP’s design in the transparent and inclusive manner required.

Similar patterns are emerging as the Government announced the establishment of additional transitional justice mechanisms. Mr. Mano Tittawella (Secretary General of the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms) informed a select group of civil society members on 20th September 2016 that the Government now plans to have five mechanisms instead of four: in addition to the OMP, the Government is designing an Office for Reparations, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a Forensics & Tracing Unit, and a Special Court—sequenced in that order.  Sources close to the government indicate that the Government apparently already has a draft bill on reparations.  The Forensics Tracing Unit was simply announced by Mr. Tittawella as a fifth mechanism (but sequenced before the special court), without any public discussion.

War-affected women are active stake holders

Even more damaging, there has been no consultation on the sequencing or ordering of the different transitional justice mechanisms with the survivors.  The decision to place the accountability mechanism last is clearly contrary to what has been demanded by victims; war-affected communities have been unequivocal that accountability is an immediate concern.  As one woman said in demanding justice, “How will those of us affected say ‘let them be happy’ after what they have done?”  Another said simply, “I have lost two sons in the war and handed over my younger son at the end of the war. All three have been snatched away from me. Please give me justice.”  Affected women have clearly articulated the need to see perpetrators stand trial for the atrocities they committed in order to begin to move forward.

War-affected women are not passive recipients of transitional justice.  They are active stakeholders and need to be treated that way.  In June 2016, women’s groups held discussions in the north and east to gather views of affected women on the proposed transitional justice mechanisms.  Participants gave nuanced proposals to advance gender justice through these mechanisms and address the root causes of past and continuing human rights violations.  They also noted ongoing security threats and expressed deep reservations about justice being sidelined as other mechanisms are developed and prioritized. These are stakeholders the Government should be consulting to deliver on its commitment to victim-centered transitional justice.

There is a real cost to ignoring these stakeholders.  Civil society members who served on the Consultations Task Force’s Zonal committees in the north and east encouraged the communities they live in to revisit their pain in order to make their voices heard.  In complying, victims clearly articulated the urgent need for justice.  Now those same civil society members must return to their communities and state that although input was received, it had no effect because the Government predetermined that justice would come last. By paying mere lip service to consultations, the Government has discredited local civil society members willing to engage in good faith and encouraged increasing numbers of disillusioned individuals to support resolutions on genocide and ethno-nationalist alternatives. Is this how the Government hopes to heal divides and deal with the past? Besides, there is a genuine concern that by putting the special court last, it may not happen, because it could come after the UN Human Rights Council has ceased monitoring Sri Lanka.

When asked why the government had unilaterally sequenced justice last, an individual involved in designing the transitional justice mechanisms offered the excuse that “war heroes cannot be transformed to war criminals overnight.”  Such glib responses not only ignore victim demands, they run counter to the Government’s recognition in co-sponsoring the Geneva resolution that a fair accountability process would actually shift blame from whole groups to individual perpetrators and thereby “safeguard the reputation of those, including within the security forces, who conducted themselves in an appropriate manner.”

The Government has so far sent mixed messages on accountability, raising distrust among war-affected communities.  The Government in 2015 committed to a special court with “Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators.”  Yet, President Sirisena told the BBC in January 2016 that he would never agree to international involvement, and the Prime Minister has made similar remarks.  The promotion of Major General Jagath Dias as the Army Chief of Staff and the nomination of former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka to be a Member of Parliament and his subsequent appointment as a Minister raise further questions as to whether the Government’s commitment to accountability is genuine.

The Government did not just promise accountability to the international community.  It made that promise to the Sri Lankan people, including the thousands of war survivors who risked their lives under the previous regime to push for justice.  In February 2015, Foreign Minister Samaraweera stated, “Unlike the previous government we are not in a state of denial, saying such violations have not happened.  We believe such violations have happened.”  He claimed that “ensuring accountability in the New Sri Lanka, will feature as a key component of the reconciliation process.”  A year later, Minister Samaraweera told a Jaffna audience that the Government was not appeasing international pressure but rather “embarking on this difficult journey because we owe it to the people of our nation.”  If the Government means what it says, it has fallen short.  If Sri Lanka is to move forward, there must be justice, sooner rather than later, and informed through meaningful public consultations, in which victims voices are heard and listened to.

Today, the focus has shifted to constitutional reform.  A new constitution promises a way forward, offering an opportunity to address structural deficiencies that led to past human rights violations to ensure that they do not recur.  Indeed, many war-affected women in the north and east appeared before the Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reforms to voice how constitutional reform could address structural ethnic and gender inequality and marginalization.  While constitutional reforms are an important part of the process, however, such reforms should not undermine accountability.

Faced with mixed messages on accountability and inadequate consultations, civil society must stand united. In some ways, we were more united in our stance against the prior Government, viewing victims’ demands for truth and justice as interconnected with threats to democracy, press freedom, religious freedom, and the rule of law.  As a united front, we lobbied and pushed through three successive Human Rights Council resolutions in Geneva in 2012, 2013, and 2014 to counter the congratulatory 2009 resolution that praised the handling of the war.  Today, our civil society coalition is at risk of fracturing, leaving victims unsure which group to join or what to say.  We must remember that we are stronger together and that our legitimacy and power come from amplifying victims’ unfiltered voices.  Recognizing that victims – including victims of LTTE crimes and the families of those disappeared by government forces in the 1980s – have agency and differing demands, we should push for meaningful consultations and truly victim-centered transitional justice mechanisms.  We must join war-affected communities and prioritize their demands for justice as we navigate how we as a collective deal with our past.