Iran seeks to renew its civil fleet by ordering $25 billion of new aircraft from Boeing and Europe’s Airbus. But Republicans in Congress voted to block the sale, clearly choosing Israel’s demands over jobs for tens of thousands of US workers. Rarely have we seen so raw an exercise of power.
by Eric S. Margolis-Dec 4, 2016
( December 4, 2016 , New York City, Sri Lanka Guardian) President-elect Donald Trump vows to either tear up or rewrite the recent international nuclear deal with Iran, calling it ‘disastrous,’ and ‘the worst deal ever negotiated by Washington.’
Iran, which has closed important nuclear facilities, shut down half its centrifuges, and neutralized its stores of nuclear material under the international agreement, must be wondering if it’s nuclear deal was not really, really disastrous.
In his rush to condemn the Iran deal, Donald Trump seems to be forgetting that the pact was co-signed by Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany and the UN. Backing out of the pact will be no easy matter and sure to provoke a diplomatic storm.
The outgoing CIA director, John Brennan, calls Trump’s plan to junk the Iran deal ‘the height of folly.’ Brennan warns that doing so would further destabilize the Mideast and embolden hard-liners on all sides. He could have added that if Iran resumes nuclear enrichment, Israel’s far right government will likely go to war with Iran in order to preserve its Mideast nuclear monopoly.
An Israeli attack on Iran could quickly drag in the United States and become a major Mideast conflict. The Pentagon is not anxious to get involved in yet another war in the Muslim world. Interestingly, some Iranian hardliners actually hope the US will attack Iran: ‘America will break its teeth on Iran, and that will be the end of its Mideast empire,’ as one overconfident Iranian told me.
Adding to tensions, the Iranian nuclear deal has been under heavy attack in the US that may sabotage the pact even without Donald Trump’s intervention. The US Israel lobby has made sabotaging the deal with Tehran a priority. Equally important, Israel’s extraordinary influence over the US Congress and media has been directed at overturning or at least derailing the nuclear accord.
Iran is loudly accused of sponsoring ‘terrorism’ for supporting the Palestinian cause and Lebanon’s resistance movement Hezbollah and Yemen’s shadowy Houthi tribal movement. This while the US is arming, supplying and financing ultra-violent anti-regime jihadists in Syria and waging war in East Africa.
US Congressmen and senators hypocritically blasted the late Fidel Castro for being a dictator while hailing Egypt’s brutal dictatorship of Field Marshall al- Sisi and, of course, China’s dictatorship. At least Castro was esteemed, even loved, by most of his people. One seeks in vain any traces of affection for US-backed dictators like Sisi or the Saudi royal family.
Meanwhile, Israel’s partisans have been waging what they call ‘Lawfare’ against the Iran deal by trying to obstruct it in many legal and bureaucratic ways, particularly by refusing to removed most of the US trade and financial embargo on Tehran stipulated in the agreement. Europe is also forced, unwillingly, to comply with many of the US trade sanctions against Iran.
One of the more egregious examples was recent efforts by Israel’s supporters in Congress to thwart the sale of some 200 commercial US and European jets to Iran. Over 30 years of US embargo have left Iran with a dilapidated and often perilous transport fleet that has killed large numbers of Iranians in crashes caused by mechanical failures.
Iran seeks to renew its civil fleet by ordering $25 billion of new aircraft from Boeing and Europe’s Airbus. But Republicans in Congress voted to block the sale, clearly choosing Israel’s demands over jobs for tens of thousands of US workers. Rarely have we seen so raw an exercise of power.
Abrogation of the international nuclear deal with Tehran would almost certainly undermine the dominant moderates in Iran’s government and boost the hardliners back into power. They have all along claimed that the US cannot be trusted. Besides, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has nuclear weapons and no one dares attack him.
But Trump will need Russian and European support for America’s other foreign policy headaches.
Europe is totally behind the Iran deal and fears its rejection will ignite yet another crisis on its doorstep.
Mr. Trump is strongly advised to leave Obama’s Iran deal alone. It’s one of the outgoing administration’s few real foreign policy successes.
Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani speaks during a news conference in Kabul, Afghanistan July 11, 2016. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani/File Photo
By Sanjeev Miglani| AMRITSAR, INDIA-Sun Dec 4, 2016
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said on Sunday that the Taliban insurgency would not survive a month if it lost its sanctuary in neighbouring Pakistan, urging its neighbour to take on militant groups on its soil instead of giving Kabul financial aid.
Ghani's remarks, made at an international conference in the northern Indian city of Amritsar not far from the border with Pakistan, suggested tensions were rising with Pakistan after Ghani attempted to improve relations with Islamabad when he took office in 2014.
Pakistan said while violence had increased in Afghanistan , blaming another country for it didn't help.
Violence has spread around Afghanistan and the Taliban's ability to conduct coordinated high profile attacks in the capital Kabul has piled pressure on Ghani's Western-backed government to provide better security to a war weary people.
Last year, Afghanistan suffered the highest number of civilian casualties and military related deaths in the world, Ghani told the Heart of Asia conference aimed at getting regional players together to help stabilise his country.
"This is unacceptable... Some still provide sanctuary for terrorists. As a Taliban figure said recently, if they had no sanctuary in Pakistan, they wouldn't last a month," he said.
Analysts say Pakistan has historically backed the Afghan Taliban as a hedge against the influence of arch-rival India, with whom Pakistan has fought three wars, in its backyard.
Pakistan denies this and instead said it is itself a victim of terrorism and that fighters of the Tehrik-i-Taliban, one of the main groups carrying out attacks inside Pakistan, were operating from Afghanistan.
Sartaj Aziz, Pakistan's top foreign policy adviser, said it was true that there had been an upsurge in violence in Afghanistan. "We need to have an objective and holistic view rather to blame one country," he told the conference.
The number of people displaced by conflict in Afghanistan this year has surpassed half a million people, the United Nations reported last month, the highest number since it began compiling such statistics in 2008.
On top of the Taliban, Islamic State has claimed responsibility for attacks targeting minority Shi'ites in Afghanistan where sectarian violence has been rare.
Ghani said there were 30 militant groups identified by the UN that were trying to establish a base in Afghanistan.
"I don't want a blame game, I want clarifications on what is being done to prevent the export of terror," Ghani said, calling it an undeclared war on Afghanistan.
"We thank Pakistan for their pledge of $500 million assistance for reconstruction of Afghanistan. I hope you use it to fight terrorists and extremists in Pakistan." Pakistan had made the pledge earlier this year.
Ghani's remarks, the strongest in recent months, come as India has simultaneously mounted pressure on Pakistan to end what it too calls cross-border terrorism in the disputed territory of Kashmir.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said regional players had to act against not only the militants but their sponsors. "It must be backed by resolute action. Not just against forces of terrorism, but also against those who support, shelter, train and finance them."
Islamabad has rejected the Indian allegations and said it was ready to hold talks with India on the dispute over Kashmir, but no talks are planned with Aziz while he is in Amritsar, Indian officials said.
(Reporting by Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Eric Meijer)
Outgoing Gambian president Yahya Jammeh seized power in 1994 in a military coup
By Stephanie Busari and Farai Sevenzo, CNN-Fri December 2, 2016
(CNN)He has ruled Gambia with an iron grip for the past 22 years, but President Yahya Jammeh has suffered a shock election defeat and will concede power to his opponent Adama Barrow, the country's electoral commission told CNN.
Joseph Colley, director of communications for the commission, said: "The President will make a television statement conceding the election within the next three hours."
"Our commissioner was called and informed and we are confident the president will concede," he added.
Earlier, the head of the commission Alieu Momar Njie, told reporters in Gambia, "It's really unique that someone who has been ruling this country for so long has accepted defeat."
Barrow, a property developer, won more than 45% of the vote with 263,515 ballots cast for him.
He reportedly previously worked as a security guard at the Argos retail store in London where he once tackled a shoplifter, according to reports in UK newspapers.
Speaking to CNN by phone from the Gambian capital Banjul, Barrow said: "We are very, very, very happy. The people have been very patient."
Asked what he planned to do with the incumbent president's human rights violations, he said: "We will follow the rule of law...he has led a good campaign and conceded. But everything will be done according to the law."
President Jammeh seized power in 1994 in a military coup and has been in power ever since. Human rights groups have described his regime as abusive, with hundreds of political prisoners languishing in jail.
On the eve of the election, websites and phone lines were blocked and remained so as polls opened on Thursday.
Throughout election day, heavy paramilitary presence was reported at poll stations as Gambians cast their votes using the country's unique marbles and drums system.
In April, the UDP's national organizing secretary was beaten to death while in custody of security services, according to a Human Rights Watch report.
Sabrina Mahtani of Amnesty International said in response to news that Jammeh had conceded defeat: "For many years, the people of Gambia have suffered numerous abuses, including horrific human rights violations and oppression."
"The last two weeks have shown how much Gambians of all parties value free speech," she said. "There is a huge obligation now for the future administration to transform the human rights situation in Gambia, freeing political prisoners, removing repressive laws and entrenching newly found freedoms."
Jammeh also attracted heavy criticism for claiming that he had created a herbal remedy for AIDS. He also once threatened to behead gay people.
IT’s hard to ignore the ever increasing disparity of wealth throughout our world.
For many, they’ve never had it so good. More money, more possessions, more food than any one person could ever feasibly need. But alongside this world of excess resides a world of abject poverty and despair.
These two worlds are not mutually exclusive; sadly it is often the desperation of those most vulnerable that drives the profits of the wealthy. Major multinational corporations (MNC) are not only exploiting this disparity but enhancing it with systems of production that directly perpetuate the inequalities.
Harsh reminders of this lopsided system have come to light this week in a number of reports detailing extreme labour exploitation occurring throughout the region.
On Wednesday, Amnesty International released its damning report of child labour occurring on Indonesian palm plantations. Children as young as eight were reported to be working in “hazardous” conditions for long hours and low pay. Wilmar International Ltd, the Singapore based company who runs the offending plantations, supplies their product to global consumer companies including Unilever, Nestle, Kellogg and Procter & Gamble.
Another instance came to light from a Guardian investigation into the exploitation of migrant workers in McDonald’s restaurants in Malaysia. The Nepalese workers were deprived of their passports, paid a fraction of their promised wages and made to live in squalor while Human Connection HR, the recruitment company responsible, turned a profit and McDonald’s reaped the benefits of cheap labour.
While the countries in which many of these MNCs were founded employ the resources and legislation to regulate the work environment and ensure workers’ rights, the countries in which they conduct business often don’t. With globalisation and increasingly flexible supply chains, many producers turn to outsourcing to exploit the cheaper labour and lax regulation of other nations.
This leaves many developing nations in a difficult position.
A worker unloads palm fruit at a palm oil plantation in Peat Jaya, Jambi province on the Indonesian island of Sumatra Sep 15, 2015 in this photo taken by Antara Foto. File Photo via Reuters
Their desperation to stimulate economic growth by luring foreign investment can often preserve the lax regulation and perpetuate the disregard for workers’ welfare. In the case of Indonesia’s palm plantations, the laws were in place to protect workers but a lack of enforcement by government prevented it.
It’s undeniable that the private sector has the ability to increase productivity and help pull a developing nation out of poverty, but they cannot be given free rein to flaunt human rights in the process.
The inevitable denial and distancing that comes from these companies following such reports is infuriating. By continuing the practice of outsourcing, they ensure that they continue to turn a profit whilst avoiding culpability should anything go awry.
While it may be true that the MNCs were not directly aware of these immoral practices, the reason is simply that they just didn’t ask. These are leaders in world industry, they have the resources to implement due diligence and investigative audits into their supply chain. Had they taken the effort to delve deep enough, they would have uncovered these themselves.
For companies that pay lip-service to workers’ welfare and promise their customers sustainable, ethically sourced products, you have to wonder why they didn’t.
The answer, I suppose, is simple: Money.
In a world in which doing the right thing seems to take a back seat to turning profit, we have to keep a vigilant eye on the big corporate world and ensure that they are held accountable for their actions.
It is not enough for McDonald’s to simply change its recruitment agent or for Kellogg’s to find a new supplier.
This stops nothing and the only ones who stand to lose will be the workers themselves. Responsibility must be accepted on a corporate level and any violations must hit them where it hurts – their pockets.
Until then and not a moment before, the exploitation will continue.
However, it said there were still questions to be answered about how it is used on a wide scale across England.
Large-scale trial
Its trial on at least 10,000 people will try to figure out how to get the drugs to the right people, how popular it would be and for how long they would take Prep.
Dr Ian Williams, chairman of NHS England's group on HIV, said: "This announcement demonstrates NHS England's commitment to fund Prep and provides the chance to best prepare England for optimal roll-out following this large-scale clinical trial.
"For now, the trial will provide access to Prep for thousands of people most at risk of acquiring HIV."
Men who have sex with men are one of the groups at the highest risk of contracting HIV.
Harry Dodd, 25, is one of about 500 homosexual men in England who are taking Prep as part of a trial called Proud.
He says: "I've seen the panic on the face of previous boyfriends when they are awaiting their [HIV test] results - it's a huge fear and it affects everything you do.
"To be able to have sex without having that fear hanging over you all the time is huge."
Harry says taking Prep has still not become socially acceptable.
"Too many people seem to think it will encourage a hedonistic lifestyle, but for me this is about saving lives," he says.
"People reacted with cynicism when the contraceptive pill for women was first introduced.
"For me, taking Prep has helped me to trust again, have relationships and build bridges and that shouldn't be taken away."
Harry Dodd says taking Prep has still not become socially acceptable
Dr Michael Brady, medical director of the Terrence Higgins Trust, said the evidence on Prep was "overwhelming" but the new trial could help understand how it will work in real life.
He added: "However, we do still need answers to many questions about the trial, in terms of how exactly the trial will work in practice, how those at risk will be able to access Prep, no matter where they live, and what will happen after the trial."
Deborah Gold, chief executive of the National Aids Trust, said: "We are absolutely delighted that following our wins in court, NHS England, working with Public Health England and local government, will be now making Prep available on a large scale, and quickly, to those who need it."
The NHS in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have not yet made a decision on Prep.
பொதுபலசேனா அமைப்பினர் முன்னெடுக்க திட்டமிட்டுள்ள ஆர்ப்பாட்டமொன்றினை தடுக்கும் முகமாக பொலிஸார் ரிஜிதென்ன பகுதியில் அமைத்துள்ள தடுப்பு காவலை அகற்றுமாறு சர்ச்சைக்குரிய பிக்கு அம்பிட்டிய சுமனரத்ன தேரர் பொலிஸாரிடம் முரண்பட்டு வருகின்றமையால் குறித்த பகுதியில் பதற்றநிலை உருவாகியுள்ளது.
ஏற்பட்டுள்ள இப் பதற்றநிலைமையை கட்டுப்பாட்டுக்குள் கொண்டுவருவதற்கு பொலிஸ் உயர் அதிகாரிகளுடன், கலகம் அடக்கும் பொலிஸாரும் குறித்த பிரதேசத்துக்கு வருகைத்தந்துள்ளனர்.
மட்டக்களப்புக்கு சென்றுள்ள ஞானசார தேரர் உட்பட்ட பொதுபலசேனா அமைப்பினர் மங்களராமய ரஜமகா விகாரையில் இடம்பெறவுள்ள நிகழ்வொன்றில் கலந்துக்கொண்ட பின்னர் கரடியனாறு பகுதியில் ஆர்ப்பாட்டமொன்றை மேற்கொள்ள திட்டமிட்டிருந்துள்ளனர்.
விடயத்தை அறிந்த பொலிஸார் பொதுபலசேனா அமைப்பினரை குறித்த பகுதிக்குள் நுழைய விடாமல் தடுப்புக் காவலொன்றை அமைத்துள்ளனர்.
எவ்வாறாயினும் குறித்த பகுதிக்குள் பொதுபலசேனா அமைப்பினரை உள்நுழைய விடுமாறு அம்பிட்டிய சுமனரத்ன தேரர் பொலிஸாருக்கு அழுத்தம் கொடுத்து வருகின்றமையால் குறித்த பகுதிக்குள் பதற்றநிலை ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது.
Thank you, Hon. Presiding Member, for the opportunity to speak on the Votes of the Ministries that are under discussion today.
I would like to correct something that the Hon. Minister of Sports had mentioned a little while ago in this House as to what the TNA is supposed to have agreed with regard to the new Constitution. In our deliberations, we have very clearly stated that we stand for one, undivided, indivisible country. That is all that we have agreed to. Now, as to how you described that, you have to find the right words. We certainly have not agreed to what is classically known as a unitary State meaning a particular system of governance. That word has been used in different ways in different places.
The country that is said to be the birth place of notions of Parliamentary supremacy of undivided sovereignty, the Great Britain known as a unitary kingdom although they do not have a Constitution is able to carve out parts of their territory and give it away. They did so in 1921 and created the Republic of Ireland. They recently held a referendum in Scotland asking the people of Scotland- not all the people of Great Britain- whether they want to go separate. That is possible under what you call a unitary system because by passing a simple piece of legislation, you can even carve out and give away a part of your territory. That is not possible in federations because federation is a social contract where they agree to stay together. It is only possible in confederal arrangements, but not in federations. So, Switzerland has both words. They were a confederation, but they became a federation and therefore, any canton cannot separate and go away.
Now, basic information like this must be known and disseminated to the people of the country before people talk about unitary and federal, and seek to mislead the country on these words. I repeat, we are committed to one, undivided – not just undivided but indivisible, even in the future it cannot be divided- country and for the Constitution to have provisions that will ensure that the country cannot be divided by any Act of Parliament or any Act whatsoever. But the form of government as to how people exercise their sovereignty must be worked out in such a way that within this one country we can share powers of governance in a meaningful way. I am not saying to share sovereignty. It is possible to share sovereignty. That is not something that is wrong. But, share powers of governance, at least at three levels; at the Central Level, at the Provincial or Regional Level and at the Local Government Level. If this is kept in clear perspective, I think, we do not have to fall into this sloganeering without knowing the meaning of words. I am also saying this while the Discussion on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is underway because it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that has been tasked with the responsibility of implementing various undertakings that Sri Lanka has made to the world and most important of those is the Resolution at the UN Human Rights Council that Sri Lanka co-sponsored.
I must say a word to people who think that changes in various parts of the world can make it possible for us to escape from our obligations. These obligations did not come upon us or was not enforced on us or this is not even a Resolution of the UN Human Rights Council Members who imposed it on us. This is a Resolution that we co-sponsored. This is our Resolution.
This is something that we have told the world that we will do to achieve reconciliation in this country because we want to be reconciled. We want all our people to feel that they are Sri Lankans, they are equal Sri Lankans and that no one is a second-class citizen in this country and to be reconciled, to deal with issues that separated us, that alienated sections of this society and become one country. For that to be done, you cannot suddenly wave a magic wand and say, “All right, from today, we are all reconciled, we are one country.” That is not possible. There are issues that need to be addressed. The primary one is the Constitution because that is the social contract on which the country functions. But, there are other issues also because there was a cruel war that we all had to suffer and in the aftermath, some post-mortem of that is necessary to deal with wounds, to ensure that justice is done, to ensure that in the future we can avoid events like that and resolve whatever disputes we have amicably and in ways that are not violent. And also there were specific provisions that we agreed to implement. One of the biggest issues was the issue of missing persons and I must congratulate the Government for having taken those first steps and when that Bill was passed, I did say, it was a first baby step. Unfortunately, that first baby step remains a first baby step; the second step has still not been taken…
I am not being overly critical. I recognize that there is movement, but all of that must happen because, Hon. Minister, when that is delayed, some people get an idea that you can somehow delay it and absolve yourself from those responsibilities without actually implementing those and that is a wrong notion. No one should run away with the idea that that will ever be possible; that would not be possible. Every word of that Resolution that we ourselves said we will do must be implemented. We will support the Government in every way possible to ensure that the Government keeps to its promises on that.
There is an issue of timing, of sequencing or what can be done now, what should be done later, all of that and the constitutional reform process having now taken centre stage – we just finished the 44th Meeting of the Steering Committee; in this short time, we have had 44 meetings – the Constitutional Assembly has been presented with six Subcommittee Reports and you will see how those six Subcommittees worked. They worked furiously within a very short time span and came up with very useful Reports for discussion in the Assembly and in the country. So, that effort has certainly taken centre stage and so it must because this is the fundamental reason for all of that that happened in the country.
A Constitution, a social contract between its people, which all its people agree with is a sine qua non for the country to proceed forward. So, putting that right and laying emphasis or giving priority to that effort is, in fact, important and we do recognize that. In that process, certain other measures being delayed is understandable and we appreciate that and I must say that it has our support as well, that so long as the root cause of the conflict is addressed in drafting and enacting a new Constitution for ourselves, the other measures can come later. But again, that constructive approach and support by us should not be interpreted or taken advantage of into thinking that having relegated the other measures to be done later, that we can also be cheated in the Constitution-making process. There are people from the Government, Senior Ministers included, who have been asking me in the last couple of days, “All that you want is the implementation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Is that not so?” The Hon. Minister of Sports also had mentioned that a while ago. Everyone in this country must realize that the Tamil people sacrificed over 100,000 lives after the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted, not before. After the Thirteen Amendment was enacted. It is not for the full implementation of the Thirteenth Amendment that we made all of those sacrifices. That must be clearly understood.
During the period 1994 to 2000, during President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s time, also there was a large consensus in the country that a fundamental change must be made and Her Excellency the President at that time was able to take it to the country saying, “There is a war. I can stop the war if this is done. The country is physically, actually, on the ground, divided. I can reunite the country if this is done.” Today, the situation is the opposite: there is no war; on the ground, there is no division. But, that does not mean that the issue has been obliterated, that does not mean that the issue has suddenly vanished.
As we have said many times, the LTTE was not “the problem”. The LTTE was a manifestation of a problem. It must be understood that removing the LTTE from the scene does not deal with the problem. You have only dealt with one manifestation of the problem and unless the leaders of this country advise the people and lead the people into knowing that truth without saying, “Terrorism was the only issue and we have now vanquished it. There is no problem now”, that would be wrong. I am not saying this in any threatening way; I am only stating the reality.
We are willing to be very reasonable. Any Hon. Member here who has participated in the deliberations of the Steering Committee or in the Subcommittees would appreciate that. We are even willing to make compromises that do not affect fundamental aspirations of our people, but compromises nevertheless, in order to achieve consensus. That is a constructive approach, but again, taking up some of the attitudes, we wonder whether that is being taken as signs of weakness. That is not so. It must not be taken as signs of weakness; it must be taken as an opportunity to be grasped because we do have an opportunity now to change the ground rules, to change the Constitution, to move forward to create a different country for ourselves. We are ready for that and it would be a pity if the majority community in this country is not ready to take that hand from us now. If our extended hand is interpreted as something that is being stretched because the LTTE lost the war, then you are mistaken. Even right through that period, the Tamil people were willing to extend that hand and more so now than before when this Government has come together as a National Government for that very purpose. We realize that this is the moment when we must do all to ensure that that is achieved, that national reconciliation is achieved on the basis of equality, dignity, equal opportunity for all the different peoples who inhabit this country.
The majority will have its own place. They are the majority. That cannot be taken away. The majority should not behave as though they are the minorities and seek protection and guard themselves. That is a very strange phenomenon that you find in this country. The majority must behave like the majority with magnanimity, not with a minority complex. If the majority behaves magnanimously, like the majority that they are, a substantive majority, that cannot be changed. Then, we can move forward. You have our fullest support to be reasonable and more than anything else our assurance that we will carry our people with it, that you will have the consent of all our people for that. But that must be done. If that is not seriously pursued, then there are other issues that you have agreed to do and you are delaying doing must come to the fore because you are not doing this. If you are not doing this, all of those things cannot be even delayed. They must be done. You cannot do everything at the same time. Since you have given primacy to the enactment of a new Constitution, we can await that. Take the baby steps, as the Hon. Minister said, take those baby steps at least, but first achieve this because if you secure the future through the process of this new Constitution for all Sri Lankans, then it would actually be easier to deal with your past. But if you do not do that, deal with the past you must, you will have to, that will be a far tougher process to contend with.
So my appeal – I am glad that the Hon. Minister is here under whom all these responsibilities come – as we have done up to now, let us discuss, let us agree together how we move forward but let us do it with a spirit of genuineness and openness and sincerity that we do not harbour in our minds thoughts of cheating through this process but being genuine. The process of Constitution-making must be done with that kind of clear intention and communicated to the country as such.
Thank you so much
Hon. M A Sumanthiran’s Speech in Parliament on Sri Lanka’s new Constitution and the reconciliation Process (30th November 2016)
AFP PHOTO/LAKRUWAN WANNIARACHCHILAKRUWAN WANNIARACHCHI/AFP/Getty Images via ICMP
NIRAN ANKETELL on 12/04/2016
As Sri Lanka approaches two years of Yahapalanaya, those concerned with issues of accountability and redress for mass atrocity crimes face a new and diverse set of challenges as they navigate Sri Lanka’s politics. Despite the historic advances marked by Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 30/1, and Sri Lanka’s then unequivocal commitment to justice and accountability, momentum has diminished considerably. President Sirisena appears on the one hand to be pursuing a political solution with admirable sincerity, but has drawn bright red line around the participation of foreign judges in a special court, and if unchecked, could well extend those lines to cover other aspects the Transitional Justice (TJ) agenda.
But this political challenge—entirely expected for any observer of Sri Lankan politics—is not the only impediment. As dozens of activists have repeatedly warned, a rather more subtle but no less serious a threat to justice is also emerging, and if left unchecked, threatens to bury prospects for justice. The notion of sequencing Transitional Justice mechanisms, and in particular the adoption of a “truth first, justice later” approach has now reared its head in Sri Lanka. As Gehan Gunatilleke notes in a recent interview:
Local civil society actors have been pressing for sequencing that does not place accountability on the back burner. But this has not been the consistent view of international actors and advisors. I’m afraid the lack of deference to local demands has cost this process important momentum in terms of establishing an accountability mechanism.
At the outset, it is of note that the constitutional reform process has now taken centre-stage, and properly so. While I supported decisive action to pass legislation on the OMP and a special court pending the release of the consultation task force’s report, now that there has been a delay in establishing a special court, there is little appetite and indeed little purpose in rushing through TJ legislation in the present, particularly since negotiations on a new constitution have reached a decisive stage. The question therefore is what steps the government must take once a referendum is over? In the event Yahapalanaya prevails at a referendum, buoyed by electoral success and a third consecutive defeat for the Rajapaksa brand, the government would inevitably obtain a second (or perhaps third?) wind of political capital. What then must be done in the immediate aftermath of a successful constitutional referendum? In a recent paper, Isabelle Lassee and Indumini Randeny argue that a “truth first, justice later” approach to sequencing is, contrary to some claims, not a universal best practice; is unsuited to Sri Lanka; would undermine prospects for justice; and would in fact undercut truth-seeking efforts that are not accompanied by anti-impunity measures. Similarly, human rights defenders have warned in unison that a truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) that is not accompanied by special court legislation “will not be acceptable or credible” and that it will instead “heighten a sense of impunity and alienate victims and civil society from the process.” Of note is that this civil society statement was issued in response to a document released by the Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms which states that a TRC would be established and running by end 2017, but that special court would be established “after that”.
Nevertheless, the government has not tied itself to a firm position on sequencing and has ample room to signal a change of position without a loss of face. In fact, there is considerable evidence to suggest that SCRM’s recent preference for “truth first, justice later” sequencing was adopted principally on international advice, including that of UN functionaries.
If unchecked, the “truth first, justice later” approach could have disastrous consequences for the TJ process in Sri Lanka. The government may well find itself championing a TRC that is opposed by Sinhala Buddhist nationalists and the military—who may view the TRC as a dishonest prelude to a special court—as well as human rights defenders, civil society and the government’s Tamil constituency who will oppose it for different reasons. The latter will inevitably view a TRC sans trials as an effort to divert attention from accountability, with a real possibility of some form of boycott. While external advisors may be wedded to a perceived global template, and may not sufficiently appreciate the likelihood or cost of the catastrophic eventuality of prioritizing yet another commission over justice in Sri Lanka, the government has a political responsibility to steer its own TJ process to a successful conclusion. At the very least, it has a political interest in preventing a signal implosion of the process that is certain to follow a misguided “truth commission first, delayed justice” approach. It is thus essential that the government heeds the voices of caution from within the country.
Similarly, the United Nations also has a responsibility to intervene to check the dangerous trajectory on which its engagement with TJ in Sri Lanka has been set. It is now essential that senior officials in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), including High Commissioner Zeid, act urgently to prevent increasing civil society skepticism of the UN’s engagement with TJ. The UN has a chequered history of engagement with human rights in Sri Lanka, acknowledged candidly in its own Petrie Report, with OHCHR a notable exception. In fact, it is inconceivable that senior officials at OHCHR endorse a “truth first, justice later” approach for Sri Lanka, given that their comprehensive OISL Report does not even recommend a TRC and that their primary recommendation was a special hybrid court. In this context, High Commissioner Zeid’s March 2017 report to the Human Rights Council provides a timely opportunity to keep the focus on accountability, address misconceived efforts to delay justice, and allay the concerns of victims and human rights defenders.
If Sri Lanka’s Transitional Justice mechanisms are to be made to work, they must serve the interests of those for whose ostensible benefit the mechanisms are devised. Reformists within government, senior OHCHR officers and civil society actors must now assert themselves to resist efforts to indefinitely postpone justice. It is up to them to now steer the process to success with much the same energy and patient willingness to negotiate they admirably demonstrated in Geneva last year. Transitional Justice without Justice is neither useful nor necessary. It can and must be resisted.
During your presentation at the “Ravaya Anniversary” event, you were realistic to acknowledge that the ring of corruption that strangled Sri Lanka before 8th January 2015 was yet not fully dismantled. You regretfully accepted that a ring of influential persons were holding back the good governance commitments of the government, under your leadership, from being effectively implemented. Yet, you were far sighted and confident to commit, that over time, you will weaken the stranglehold corruption and other rings have over the prevailing governance structures and this weakening will lead to the effective delivery of good governance.
You will certainly be able, to significantly weaken these operating unscrupulous rings and deliver on your promise of good governance, by implementing with leadership commitment, the following reforms and restructures of the governance processes, over the next six months to an year;
1. Establish pararell Court Systems dedicated to hear corruption related cases, with daily hearings to a finish, operating on a two shift basis (9 a.m.- 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m.to 7 p.m.) facilitated by electronic interfaces and communications, where evidence, network facilitations and witness connectivity will be enabled via remote access technology options. ( Refer a live Indian example )
2. Establish an independent, new investigation special case work support unit, with competent resources, dedicated to deal with specialized needs arising from investigations conducted by the Financial Crimes Investigations Department (FCID,) the Criminal Investigations Department (CID,) Bribery and Corruption Commission (CIABOC ) and the Financial Investigations Unit (FIU), including support in investigating
the recovery of proceeds of crime and follow up with asset recovery in investigations handled by the law enforcement agencies
Forensic Accounting
Cyber Crimes
Organized Crimes
High Value White Collar Crimes
3. Enact a new comprehensive Proceeds of Crimes Act – A new enactment bench marking the
by Eric S. Margolis- Dec 4, 2016
