Sri Lanka: Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Recommended Foreign Judges!

( January 5, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A government-appointed Consultation Task Force on reconciliation Mechanism (CTFRM) has recommended the participation of foreign judges in war crimes courts to be established in accordance with 30/1 Geneva Resolution adopted in Oct 2015.

The UNP-SLFP coalition co-sponsored US-led resolution in 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Task Force sources confirmed the recommendation that each court to be set up consist of local judges and one foreign judge.

Responding to a query by the local media, sources said that their recommendation was in line with the Geneva Resolution that proposed foreign judges including those from Commonwealth in the war crimes court.

Geneva Resolution was based on UN Panel of Experts (PoE) report that accused the Sri Lankan military of massacring over 40,000 Tamil civilians during the last phase of operations on the Vanni east front.

The CTFRM headed by Manouri Muttetuwegama comprised Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Gamini Viyangoda, Visaka Dharmadasa, Shantha Abhimanasingham, PC, Prof Sitralega Maunaguru, K.W. Janaranjana, Prof. Daya Somasundaram, Dr Farzana Haniffa, Prof. Gameela Samarasinghe and Mirak Raheem.

The government appointed CTFRM in January last year following the Geneva Resolution. Former President and head of Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) Chandrika Bandaranaike received the final report on Tuesday.

The Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM) has invited the media to a briefing at the Information Department today at 2.00 pm.

The Muttetuwegama Task Force held consultations in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and also in areas outside the war zone over in 2016.

President Maithripala Sirisena and top government ministers have repeatedly declared that foreign judges wouldn’t be acceptable under any circumstances.

Download/ Read the final report in three language below;

FINAL REPORT OF THE CONSULTATION TASK FORCE ON RECONCILIATION MECHANISMS

Executive Summary and Recommendations

FINAL REPORT OF THE CONSULTATION TASK FORCE ON RECONCILIATION MECHANISMS.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Sri Lanka divided as panel backs foreign judges to probe war crimes

Sri Lanka's Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (R) and President Maithripala Sirisena stand next to each other during cricketer Kumar Sangakkara's retirement ceremony, August 24, 2015. REUTERS/Dinuka Liyanawatte/Files

By Shihar Aneez | COLOMBO-Fri Jan 6, 2017

Sri Lanka should bring in international prosecutors and judges to help investigate alleged atrocities in the civil war that ended in 2009, a task force said on Thursday in recommendations that were welcomed by the United Nations.

The Consultation Task Force (CTF), appointed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, said foreign involvement was needed because of a lack of confidence in the local judiciary, which it said did not have the expertise and capacity to prosecute war crimes.

However, President Maithripala Sirisena opposes the involvement of foreign judges, and cabinet spokesman Rajitha Senarathne said on Wednesday the government had clearly told the U.N. that it would not allow them.

The war crimes issue is highly divisive, seven years after the end of the 26-year conflict between government forces and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The U.N. and rights groups have accused the military of killing thousands of civilians, mostly Tamils, during its final weeks.

The office of U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said on Twitter that he welcomed the CTF's recommendations, especially its "clear backing of a hybrid court" with local and foreign judges.

The opposition led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was president when the government finally defeated the LTTE, has held out against foreign judicial involvement and said his successor is betraying the military for a "Western agenda".

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which is the main political party representing Tamils and backed Sirisena in the 2015 presidential election, has demanded foreign judges be brought in, as most similar investigations in the past have failed to prosecute wrongdoers.

The Tamil Tigers were also accused of widespread abuses during the war, such as using child soldiers and targeting civilians with suicide bombers, including an attack on the central bank in 1996 which killed nearly 100 people.

The U.N. launched a probe in 2014 into war crimes allegedly committed by both Sri Lankan state forces and Tamil rebels, saying the government had failed to investigate properly. But

Rajapaksa's government resisted the probe and denied U.N. officials entry to the island nation.

(Reporting by Shihar Aneez; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Sri Lanka task force seeks ‘hybrid’ war crimes court

In January 2016, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe appointed the CTF to seek national views on reconciliation mechanisms.

Meera Srinivasan- JANUARY 05, 2017

The state must release private land occupied by its armed forces, address lingering concerns of militarisation, enforced disappearances and livelihood opportunities in order to move ahead on its promise of reconciliation, a Sri Lankan task force has observed.

The government-appointed Consultation Task Force (CTF), comprising civil society members such as activists and academicians, held island-wide consultations on the Sri Lankan government’s proposed reconciliation mechanisms following the UNHRC resolution in 2015.

Sri Lanka, which co-sponsored the resolution, proposed four mechanisms for reconciliation — Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-Recurrence, Office of Missing Persons, Office of Reparations and a Judicial Mechanism with Special Counsel.

In January 2016, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe appointed the CTF to seek national views on reconciliation mechanisms. The consultations were conducted independent of government intervention, members said.

Releasing its report on January 3, based on public hearings and discussions across Sri Lanka, the team recommended a “hybrid court” with both local and foreign judges to prosecute war crimes.

The report comes days after Prime Minister Wickremesinghe made a public statement ruling out foreign judges, a contentious issue among nationalist forces among the majority Sinhalese. President Maithripala Sirisena too has opposed international judges, raising questions on whether the government will muster enough political will to move ahead on reconciliation, amid domestic political compulsions.

Addressing a press conference here on Thursday, CTF secretary Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu said it was crucial that international legal experts participate, because the existing local mechanisms lacked the trust of the people and competency.

“Many people who participated in the consultations demanded confidence-building measures to bridge the trust deficit,” he said, pointing the need for constitutional reforms, de-militarisation, return of private land and to repeal Sri Lanka’s draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which the state continues to invoke.

‘Array of perpetrators’

The consultations, according to CTF member and researcher Mirak Raheem, threw light on an “array of perpetrators”, and victims among both the Tamils and Sinhalese.

Perpetrators ranged from the state, its armed forces, the police, the Janata Vimukthi Perumuna — a leftist nationalist party involved in two armed uprisings — to various Tamil militant groups, including the LTTE, and members of the Indian Peace Keeping Force — a military contingent deployed for a peace keeping operation in Sri Lanka between 1987 and 1990.

Concerns over land under state occupation and livelihoods recurred at discussions just in the Tamil-majority north and east, but also in the south, members said. “The amount of deprivation and breakdown of livelihood was unbelievable in many areas,” said CTF’s Manouri Muttetuwegama, a senior lawyer and long-time human rights activist.

Batticaloa academic Sitralega Maunaguru pointed to many, particularly among Tamils of recent Indian origin living in the island’s Central Province, who underscored their prolonged marginalisation by the Sri Lankan state.

I have no confidence in the CTF: Wijeyadasa
Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe

2017-01-06

Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe said today said he had no confidence in the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF) appointed by the Prime Minister. He said the CTF, which recommended the inclusion of at least one international judge on every bench set up to hear allegations of war crimes and the violation of human rights that had taken place during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. 

The minister said some of the members of the CTF Committee were representatives of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO).

 “No one is complaining about the independence of the judiciary anymore. We have reconciliation and peace processes in place. This report, at this juncture, is totally unwarranted. Therefore, we don’t have to follow these recommendations by the CTF,” he told the Daily Mirror.

 The minister said no one could force us to have foreign judges or make us do things for the sake of reconciliation and impartiality. “If forcing continues, Sinhalese and Muslims will also be compelled to ask for justice for the crimes committed by the LTTE. They will ask for probes on terror attacks on the Dalada Maligawa, Sri Maha Bodhiya, Aranthalawa, Kattankudy and so on,” he said. 

He said even the UN could not force the government to include foreign judges, as it was against the UN charter to force or to pressure member states, be it large or small, powerful or weak. Having foreign judges in local tribunals is also a violation of the Constitution. 

The minister said this situation was the result of the agreement signed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa with former UN Chief Ban Ki-moon. 

The CTF presented its final report to former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, the Chairperson of the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) on Tuesday at the Presidential Secretariat. 

It was set up by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on January 26 last year to obtain public views, particularly those of affected communities across the country, on the reconciliation mechanisms proposed by the Government and incorporated in the Resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council. (Lahiru Pothmulla)

Sri Lanka Briefing: Political Jostling; an Oily Mess

A round-up of major happenings in Sri Lanka in the last week.

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena (right) with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Credit: Reuters

BY DEVIRUPA MITRA ON 03/01/2017

Political jostling over Hambantota

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa dominated the news cycle in the emerald isle over his opposition to leasing of land to the Chinese in Hambantota and his intention to bring down the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)-United National Party (UNP) government this year.

In his weekly column, The Sunday Times’ political editor had the most comprehensive laundry list of the ongoing name-calling between the SLFP and UNP. The verbal fights have become so bitter that UNP ministers have accused President Maithripala Sirisena’s brother of running the “rice mafia”.

With the SLFP spokesperson and ministers raising doubts about the validity of the MoU signed in September, which increased the term of the ruling coalition from two to five years, The Sunday Times‘ political editor wondered, “That begs answer to the question whether he has the blessings of his leadership to make those pronouncements. Many in the pro Sirisena SLFP believe he does. And that begs answer to an even more critical question — can the drift of the two sides from one another be stopped? If not, what happens to the many development programmes and the resuscitation of the country’s economy, an item of high priority?”

Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Meanwhile, Ceylon Today reported based on “informed sources” that ten ministers will be part of a group of SLFP members who will leave the government on January 8, the second anniversary of Sirisena’s surprise win.

Rajapaksa’s blunt statement to foreign correspondents in Colombo that his new year resolution was to overthrow the government of national unity got the attention of the Lankan media. “Man on Mission to topple government in 2017,” said the main lead of the business paper Daily FT, with similar iterations across all newspapers.

When asked about Rajapaksa’s threat, Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said, “Mr. Rajapaksa can do whatever he wants when I go to Switzerland”. He will be travelling soon to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos.

In an oped for the Daily News, Harim Peiris, advisor to the Sri Lankan foreign minister, was predictably dismissive with the likelihood of Rajapaksa getting his wish.

“The first obstacles in a Rajapaksa return is that the fundamental political dynamics that formed the foundation of Rajapaksa defeat, still holds true… If the Rajapaksa political comeback project is to succeed, two key changes need to take place, there must be an honest assessment of the failures of their governance, in all areas including economic, foreign, public sector management and social reconciliation policies and consequently seek to design a policy message and political outreach that is more pluralistic, tolerant and democratic.”

The Island’s editorial also seemed to hedge its bets. “Rajapaksa appears to command a majority of SLFP members of parliament, but even if the Sirisena-faction joins him, they are still short of a handful of MPs to ensure an absolute majority in the 225-majority national legislature…The unity of the fractured SLFP is the biggest threat to Wickremesinghe’s government and its failure to deliver on tackling corruption and prosecute alleged swindlers of the previous regime weighs heavily against it”.

On January 5, Wickremesinghe is set to make a “special statement on the current status of the UNP-SLFP unity Government and its future policies,” according to Ceylon Today.

The Hambantota port deal continues to be the eye of the political storm. The right-wing nationalist Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and ruling alliance partner claimed that bribes of $100 million was paid to government politicians to expedite the agreement that will allow for a Chinese firm to get an 80% stake in the port and 15,000 acres to build a SEZ nearby. “We are against the deal as the government has not revealed the lease agreement with China Merchants Port Holdings so far,” JHU’s Nishantha Sri Warnasinghe told The Island.

The Sunday Times reported that the Sri Lankan cabinet planned to examine the final text of the concession agreement, worth $1.2 billion, on January 3 and then sign on the dotted line on January 7. It also revealed that the Chinese ambassador to Sri Lanka had expressed concern about the allegations made by the JHU during his meeting with Sirisena on December 28.

Meanwhile, the joint opposition announced on Monday, January 2, that a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the Hambantota port deal.

Courtesy: The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka

In Hambantota, district authorities dropped in unannounced for a survey without prior notification to village residents, who had erected black flags, posters and banners against the land acquisition. “For generations our ancestors have shed blood and sweat to build these farmlands. Our economy and culture are bound to these lands. So we would not move away from these lands under any condition,” said a Hambantota farmer in The Sunday Leader.

New constitution

This week Lankan political parties prepare the debate on the draft proposals for a new constitution in parliament on January 9-10. Tamil National Alliance (TNA) chief and leader of the opposition R. Sampanthan has convened a special meeting of his party MPs ahead of the debate, with Tamil leaders pushing for a more federal structure to the constitution.

In an interview to Ceylon Today, Jaffna District TNA MP Dharmalingam Sithadthan said that there were “positive signals” that police and land powers could be devolved to the provinces.

Local government elections are expected to be further delayed, after provincial council and local government minister Faiszer Musthapa refused the accept the much-delayed report of the delimitation of local wards. The reason was that two committee members had not signed the report as they wanted to further study its provisions. The Island reports that the minister left in a huff when the chairman of the committee revealed the political affiliations of the two members in an answer to a media query.

An oily mess

There was no clarity on the incident of the alleged “detention” of four Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) by officials of the Sri Lankan subsidiary of Indian Oil Corporation (LIOC), which ended up as a blame game. According to the CPC, four officials were “held captive” for an hour when they went to inspect four of the oil tanks at the tank farm in China Bay, Trincomalee, while the LIOC complained to the local police about an attempt to enter the facility without an authorisation letter.

Petroleum minister Chandima Weerakody said that his government will go ahead with acquiring three oil tanks after talks with India in line with a cabinet decision. “The Cabinet decision was based on a national requirement and we have informed Indian Oil Company (IOC) of this decision in writing. We do not want a dispute with a neighbouring country but a company has no right to interfere with a Cabinet decision,” he said as reported by The Sunday Times.

Another in back seat of Thajudeen’s car on day of murder

January 6, 2017

The state counsel representing the Attorney General has told Court that investigations have revealed that there had been another person in the back seat of popular rugby player Wasim Thajudeen’s vehicle on the day he was murdered.

Colombo Additional Magistrate Jayaram Trosky ordered CID to present a report indicating the progress of the investigations on the 19th.
The counsel appearing for the Attorney General said it was necessary to record a statement from former OIC Crimes at Narahenpita Police Sumith Perera who is in remand prison in connection with the murder and then a progress report could be presented to Court.
OIC crimes at Narahenpita Police Sumith Perera and former DIG Anura Senanayaka were further remanded until the 19th.

Court requests army again to forward the list of the LTTE cadres who surrendered

(Lanka-e-News -05.Jan.2017, 11.30PM) Mulaitivu district court judge M.S.M.Samsudeen issued an order on 3 rd January to the army to forward to court on  January 30 th  the list of the names of the LTTE members who surrendered to the army during the final phase of the war .

The lawyer for the petitioners K.S. Rathnavale said , this court order was made when the case was taken up for trial in which habeas corpus applications have been filed in connection with a group that has gone missing of those who were handed over to the army supported with evidence. 

Major General S. Gunawardena who was in court on the previous date to give evidence told court that the name list of those who surrendered is in the custody of the army.

The lawyer for the petitioners however pointed out , the list submitted to court by the major general was the name list of the group of LTTE members that was accepted for  rehabilitation by the government , which list cannot therefore be accepted. The court after being informed of this  ordered  the army to provide the list of names pertaining to this  case on 2017-01-30 

About 400 LTTE cadres of those who were handed over to the army have gone missing so far , and the relatives of those missing have filed  14 habeas corpus cases in the Mulaitivu court . 

Lawyer  Rathnavale also revealed , at the time when this group was accepted by the army , there were two Catholic priests appointed by the army  as witnesses , and when the LTTE cadres were being transported , the two priests too were taken along in the buses by the army . These details have been included in the complaints made by the complainants  . Besides , two cases have been filed in the Vavuniya court in regard to the  disappearance of the two priests ,  the lawyer further pointed out .

---------------------------
by     (2017-01-06 03:07:22)

Cuban & Neoliberal Economic Development Models In The Era Of Dependency On Foreign Capital

By Siri Gamage –January 6, 2017

Dr. Siri Gamage

Recent articles in Colombo Telegraph about Fidel Castro, his legacy and the left have generated an interesting dialogue that has ramifications for Sri Lanka and indeed the political, economic, cultural and intellectual trends in the global south. While it is not for me to comment at length on Fidel and his legacy, in this article I draw your attention to several key points.

The Cuban model in social, cultural-educational terms have some merits. However, I am uncertain about its economic and political merits. I am aware of the way basic necessities such as health and education are delivered to the citizens without asking them to purchase medicine, pay for doctors etc. These services are provided by the state. In fact Cuban medicos, nurses etc provide similar services in friendly countries with a service ethos rather than a profit making intent e.g. Timor Leste. A colleague of mine has successfully applied a Cuban adult education model in Australian Aboriginal communities to enhance adult literacy levels. There may be other admirable aspects of social service delivery in Cuba based on the ideal of socialism, equity and social justice. In economic terms, the Cuban model is different from the globally dominant neoliberal, free market development model adopted by many developing countries in the global South. For instance, I do not believe that Cuba invites foreign corporations and capital to its shores for direct foreign investment (DFI). Likewise, I do not think it invites foreign education providers to provide education as a marketable commodity to local youths. Unlike Sri Lanka, Philippines, or Bangladesh, I do not think that Cuba sends thousands of married and unmarried women to countries of the Middle East and elsewhere to work as domestic workers under trying conditions facing multiple abuses by the employers. Those who fled Cuba to Florida represent a different breed of Cubans who admire the American system. The Cuban model is different from the economic development model adopted by countries like Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Singapore, and Vietnam. Politically, the Cuban model poses some difficulties in terms of civic and political freedoms. Such problems exist even in powerful countries like Russia and China or for that matter in Vietnam ruled by Communist parties.

If you ask a Sri Lanka on the street whether he or she likes the Cuban, Chinese, Russian, Vietnam model or the Euro-American model, we all know what the answer would be? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand what the average person wants. It includes basic needs, freedoms, a just society and corruption free small government, a safe nation and country to belong to, and peace. Thus, the need today is to examine these different models and their merits rather than theorise about Castro and his legacy at length (though this can be a useful intellectual exercise) if we are to derive lessons for today’s problems in economics, state and politics, sociology and culture fields.

In the contemporary era, States cannot survive on their own. They need taxes to generate income, which in turn are used to provide services while running the governments. Developing countries like Sri Lanka seek foreign capital, know how, direct investments, investors etc. for various infrastructure projects, industrial and manufacturing ventures, service provision, and even knowledge production partly due to the lack of tax income and partly for reasons of colonial dependency. They also obtain multi billion dollar loans from multilateral agencies for various projects. The hope is that such projects and investments will yield results that benefit the population in the long run, remove any dependencies and be able to stand on their foot independently while safeguarding the sovereignty, national identity, culture and values. However, by looking at the predicament of countries that follow the neoliberal, free market private capital driven Euro-American, the Chinese, Vietnam, or Russian model is that they have become more indebted to the world, more corrupt, and in many cases the states have become anti democratic.

To satisfy the needs and demands of the multinational corporations from the so called free world of the America and Europe or the state affiliated companies of China, and Russia, governments in the global South have been compelled to become authoritarian or semi authoritarian. We have first hand experience of such a situation in the not too distant past. Whether fulfilling the needs of foreign companies under semi authoritarian political framework or somewhat democratic framework where political and civic freedoms are facilitated by governments, the states seem to meet the desires of multinational corporations and the powerful states that dominate the global agenda. Thus the question is not what we can learn from Fidel, Che, Mao or indeed the Cuban model? The serious question to ponder about is how we could create a state that does not cross the line when it comes to adopting this globally dominant neoliberal economic model that has the potential to create new dependencies and lose our land, rights and freedoms. Can we become isolationist like Cuba and go on our own for our economic survival? Can we afford not to invite foreign investment to some degree? Are there other, more socially just political and economic models that we can examine for developing our economies and societies?

Multinationals from the free world and state enterprises from China etc. are interested in our labour, resources or strategically important facilities like ports for a variety of reasons. For negotiating economic and infrastructure projects countries like Sri Lanka have to compromise. However, such compromises do not have to be beyond our national interest. Rather than idolizing Fidel or Rajapaksa and demonizing Sirisena or Wickremesinghe, the need of the hour is to look for a development model that do not require us to compromise our needs, liberties, and sovereignty. Mega industrial and tourism projects funded and operated by foreign entities can have serious social, cultural consequences though they may generate taxes or employment. We cannot be blind to these consequences. From Fidel and Cuba, we can learn how to protect national sovereignty. From China, Russia and Vietnam we can learn how not to curb political and other freedoms.

Foreign corporations and other entities prefer to deal with authoritarian and semi authoritarian regimes, as they do not wish to face popular protests against their ventures or activities. Local ruling classes and capitalist classes collaborate with such corporations, entities and even the states promoting their interests in search of foreign capital, knowhow, and capacities for generating employment. Nonetheless, the interest of these foreign corporations, powerful states and entities is not necessarily the welfare of our peoples but more profits for their shareholders. States and the capitalist-ruling classes in developing countries are embedded in the corporate sectors -local and foreign – in following the neoliberal, free-market, globalisation model of development. In fact the state itself has increasingly become a corporate entity.

Read More

‘Assistance’ or Espionage?

 2017-01-07

Recent media reports revealing that a $13.7 million USAID programme for ‘democracy and accountability’ is to be implemented by a private US company alleged to have links to the CIA, raise several questions regarding the nature of the government’s relationship with the US.

A leading newspaper cited on its January 2, 2017 edition that the US Embassy in Colombo confirming that the company Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) ‘would work closely with the Parliament, Independent Commissions and related ministries’ to carry out the project. Another leading TV channel bulletins of 2, 3 and 4 Jan. 2017 also exposed the company’s alleged links with the CIA.   
An alarming aspect of the expose is that so few parliamentarians are even aware of the project’s existence, leave alone details of the bilateral agreement signed by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya last September in Washington, with a government delegation. The ‘Strengthening Democratic Governance and Accountability Project’ (SDGAP) as it is described, is not subject to Sri Lankan law but to the laws and regulations of the US, under the terms of the agreement. It does not come under the purview of Sri Lanka’s Auditor General - the Auditor General’s Department itself is apparently under scrutiny under another USAID (US Agency for International Development) project. It would be relevant to ask whether there has not been a serious dereliction of responsibility by political leaders, in allowing politically sensitive internal reforms to be ‘outsourced’ in this manner to foreign agencies. The fact that the contractor has alleged links with funding the country’s intelligence agency makes matters worse.   

The US embassy has said that USAID also has projects working with “Parliamentary Committees on Public Accounts and Public Enterprises, the National Procurement Commission, and others to support transparency, accountability, and capacity development.”   

Ironically, interviews by the said TV channel news showed how uninformed government ministers were about this project meant to promote ‘transparency and accountability.’ Minister of Public Administration and Management Ranjith Madduma Bandara denied the involvement of any American Company ‘to train our officials,’ while Speaker Jayasuriya said he was unaware of DAI’s alleged CIA links. Deputy Media Minister Karunasena Paranavitana at a press conference said that USAID was the implementing agency, and that ‘maybe they were looking for a subcontractor.’ When a journalist persisted with questioning he agreed to ‘look into the matter.’   

DAI is said to be one of the largest US government contractors in the world, particularly active in Latin America. Its subversive role in Venezuelan politics has been thoroughly documented by Eva Golinger in her 2005 book ‘The Chavez Code – Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela.’ Golinger calls on Venezuela to expel DAI, which she describes as a CIA front and ‘an organization dedicated to destabilizing governments unfavourable to US interests.’  

“DAI was awarded a multi-million dollar budget from the USAID in Venezuela to “assist civil society and the transition to democracy” writes Golinger. “More than 2,000 documents partially declassified from the USAID regarding the agency’s activities in Venezuela reveal the relationship between the DAI and sectors of the Venezuelan opposition that have actively been involved in coup d’etats, violent demonstrations and other destabilization attempts against President Chávez” (Chavezcode.com).   

Explaining how the CIA operates abroad Golinger writes: “The use of a chain of entities and agencies is a mechanism employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to channel and filter funding and strategic political support to groups and individuals that support US agenda abroad. The pretext of “promoting democracy” is a modern form of CIA subversion tactics, seeking to infiltrate and penetrate civil society groups and provide funding to encourage “regime change” in strategically important nations, such as Venezuela, with governments unwilling to subcomb (sic) to US dominance.”  
The role of the USAID in Sri Lanka today has undergone considerable change since it started operations in the1950’s with the ‘PL-480’ food aid programme, with humanitarian overtones. With geographic location assuming importance in the power-games being played out in the region today, it would appear that strategic considerations have entered the equation in the US’s engagement with the island.   

USAID’s Asia Bureau Asst. Director Jonathan Strivers outlining budget priorities for 2017 opened his address to a US Congress Foreign Affairs subcommittee last year by referring to the role of the USAID in advancing US foreign policy goals in South Asia. In Sri Lanka he said that US support helped advance the ‘reform, accountability and reconciliation agenda’ and that the USAID would be working with key institutions, including Parliament, the Judiciary, the Elections Commission and Auditor General.   

These remarks show how USAID’s focus has shifted away from economic development. It is in the context of these changes that the aid agency’s alleged collaboration with the CIA in Sri Lankan would need to be investigated. There have been numerous instances documented where the USAID projects were found to have had links with the CIA.   ‘Foreign Policy’ magazine of April 3, 2013 cites an explosive ‘Associated Press’ investigation that revealed how the US covertly launched a fake Twitter platform in Cuba called ‘ZunZuneo’ (referring to the Cuban hummingbird’s tweet) with a view to sparking a ‘Cuban Spring’ and bringing about the collapse of the island’s communist government (‘U.S. Secretly Created ‘Cuban Twitter’ to Stir Unrest’- AP April 4, 2014).  

Here’s what FP further has to say about the murky side of USAID’s activities: “Though better known for administering humanitarian aid around the world; the USAID has a long history of engaging in intelligence work and meddling in the domestic politics of aid recipients. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the agency often partnered with the CIA’s now-shuttered Office of Public Safety, a department beset by allegations that it trained foreign police in “terror and torture techniques” and encouraged official brutality, according to a 1976 Government Accountability Office report. The USAID officials have always denied these accusations but in 1973, Congress directed the USAID to phase out its public safety programme - which worked with the CIA to train foreign police forces - in large part because the accusations were hurting America’s public image.”

  
 “USAID is perhaps the new CIA” said Peter Kornbluh, Director of the Cuba Documentation Project at George Washington University. Talking to ‘Democracy Now’ about USAID’s fake Twitter operation he described how it was part of a broader US effort to use the Internet and social media to create a communications vehicle that could be used to spur unrest. And it was funded under a programme to ‘promote democracy.’   
Does this all sound familiar…?   

Two years after

By Izeth Hussain-January 6, 2017, 12:00 pm 

Two years after the January 2015 general elections - which I and some others hailed as a revolution -there is widespread disillusionment about the present government. Apparently corruption continues at an unacceptable level, and things in general are more or less the same though with some improvements. Differences are of degree, not of kind, and it would seem therefore that it was over-sanguine to have talked of a Revolution. In my response I would focus on the Government’s positive performance on the restoration of democracy, on taking corrective action on the economy, on offering some hope of movement towards a solution of the ethnic problem, and on coping with new challenges in our foreign relations.

All that may not amount to much. But that accords with the meliorist position in politics which aims at ameliorating the human condition, not at establishing a utopia. Politics is seen as the art of the possible, and there is recognition of the fact that in politics what is often on offer is not a choice between the good and the bad but between the bad and the worse. Consequently improvements, even though they may be of a modest order, are to be welcomed. But where does the Revolution come in? That comes in because of the dynamics of modernity: small improvements accumulate and result in change of a revolutionary order. In Sri Lanka, for instance, there was no successful mass revolution during the last century. But changes of an undoubtedly revolutionary order did take place between 1900 and 1999.

I believe that it will help in attaining a balanced assessment of our present situation if we view it in a long-term perspective, taking particular account of revolutionary changes. Before proceeding further I must clarify that an assessment of Sri Lanka’s present situation is a huge and complex matter, and what I am offering in this article are no more than a few notes, a few pointers, towards that assessment. From 1948 to 1956 we had a liberal market-oriented economy together with welfare measures that were exceptional for an underdeveloped country, within an admirably fully functioning democracy. Had those strategies continued under an enlightened leadership willing to make certain changes Sri Lanka could have become a rare success story of a developing country combining growth with equity.

That did not happen because of the 1956 Revolution, which was a local manifestation of the Afro-Asian variety of socialism that swept through several countries including India, Burma, Soekarno’s Indonesia, Nasser’s Egypt, the Syria and Iraq of the Baath Socialists, Kaunda’s Zambia, Nyerere’s Tanzania, Seku Toure’s Guinea etc. In Latin America the closest approximation to Afro-Asian socialism was the populism of Peron of Argentina, but there was nothing comparable anywhere else in Latin America because American imperialism tolerated only traditional oligarchic dictatorship. The positive feature of Afro-Asian socialism was an authentic indigenous nationalism that displaced the neo-colonialism of the Westernised elites. In Sri Lanka that nationalism led to the rise to elite levels of the Sinhalese lower middle class. The rise of that class in other Afro-Asian countries also led to another common characteristic: state-centric economies that left a record of ubiquitous failure.

There is one characteristic of Afro-Asian socialism that has not got adequate recognition. Behind all the rhetoric of socialism, Afro-Asian socialism was basically a mechanism for the rise of the lower middle class to elite levels. That class did not for the most part have higher education enabling it to rise in the Administration and the professions; nor did it have the skills and the capital to make money through business. There was only one way in which that class could rise quickly to positions of power and affluence. It had to be through the State, and that really was the dynamic behind the State-centric economies of Afro-Asia. An undue proportion of the resources of the State – the produce of the people as a whole – went to the politically influential. It was a form of theft. A moral rottenness was therefore installed at the very core of the Sri Lankan polity after 1956.

The next revolutionary change took place in 1977. President JR deserves credit for having been the first South Asian leader to grasp that the motor of growth in the developing countries had to be the private sector. He therefore re-installed a liberal market-oriented outward-looking economy which quickly started producing spectacular growth rates. But, alas, he earned credit for nothing else. There was a failure in attracting foreign direct investment: the big multinationals stayed aloof from Sri Lanka not only after the 1983 holocaust but even before that – the reason for which requires exploration. On the ethnic front he presided over the anti-Tamil pogroms from 1977 to 1983, rendering inevitable the 26-year civil war that followed. On the political front, he destroyed democracy utterly, showing hatred and contempt towards it. It’s about time that we Sri Lankans start assessing performance in politics not by rhetoric but by results. What were the results of his rule? By 1988 there were two civil wars going on simultaneously, those of the LTTE and of the JVP; the IPKF troops were here behaving like conquerors; the Government had lost control over a third of the national territory and over half of the coastline.

What went wrong? We can think of half a hundred reasons, some of which are more important than others. I go back to the analyses I used to make in the first half of the ‘nineties in which I gave central importance to the destruction of moral standards by the then Government. The hypothesis behind that argument was that a society is held together by a moral system which leads to a legal system which in turn regulates public life. If that moral system is in decay, and if furthermore it comes under attack by the State, the disintegration of that society has to follow. And that precisely was what had happened by

1988.

I will give a few examples of attacks on moral standards after 1977. The late Saratchandra used to inveigh against some of the ill effects of the liberalized economy. That displeased the State, whose henchmen beat him up together with Buddhist monks in a public place with total impunity. The Supreme Court gave a verdict that displeased the State. The Judges were subjected in their residences to threats and abuse by thugs who were transported in CTB buses. Gonawila Sunil was convicted as the leader in a case of gang rape. After a brief while in prison he was given a Presidential pardon, escorted out of prison by a UNP notable, made an all-island Justice of the Peace, and inducted into the Central Committee of the UNP. In all these cases what were at issue were not double standards, the tribute that vice hypocritically pays to virtue, in which most Governments indulge: they pay obeisance to legal and moral standards while violating them. What was on display was blatant and utter contempt for legal and moral standards. In terms of the theory suggested in the preceding paragraph, ill consequences had to follow. By 1988 the Sri Lankan State was in a state of disintegration.

It is in the long-term perspective that I have sketched out above that we must assess the performance of the present Government. We have certainly come a long way since 1988. Democracy was restored under President Chandrika Kumaratunge, it was breaking down under her successor, and it has been restored again. I would say that the most encouraging fact about the present Government is that it seems to be in the process of firmly entrenching democracy. If that happens we will have Governments under which it will always be possible for the people to enforce corrective action on the wielders of power. Most important is that the people will be able to enforce respect for decent legal and moral norms on the wielders of power who, in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, have a natural propensity to lapse into savagery.

izethhussain@gmail.com

Time to ensure State enterprises deliver value to the public 

Friday, 6 January 2017

The former administration, unlike any other previous regimes, made a conscious effort to extend its dominance in many economic spheres. All governments in Sri Lanka in the last 25 years have in many forms tried their hand in running commercial enterprises. Overall, it has been a terrible experience and a costly exercise for the taxpayers.

The revelations by the Prime Minister of the total mismanagement within SriLankan Airlines is a case in point. For example the Board of Inquiry found evidence of former Chairman Nishantha Wickramasinghe and ex-CEO Kapila Chandrasena falsifying documents to lease a luxury sports utility vehicle for the use of Wickramasinghe. The purchase of vehicles pales into insignificance when compared to irregularities in the re-fleeting exercise.

Role of the State

The general thinking worldwide nowadays, especially after the financial crisis, is that government should not run commercial enterprises, no matter whether they are profit-making or not, and the government should only limit its involvement to simply running essential public utilities. We all know it’s not the government’s job to run businesses. It should act as a regulator and facilitator.

Over the years successive governments have dumped hundreds of millions of rupees just to prop up loss making State-run corporations and as a result increased our public debt many times over. Public sector companies need to completely overhaul their culture and practices if they are to match the performance of their private-sector counterparts and even become world-class players. Some have succeeded globally, most have failed.

Why do state enterprises fail?

Governments usually fail in business because politicians, not business executives, run governments. Politicians can only make political decisions, not economic ones. They are, after all, first and foremost in the re-election business. Because of the need to be re-elected, politicians are always likely to have a short-term bias.

What looks good right now is more important to politicians than the long-term consequences, even when those consequences can be easily foreseen. Most politicians therefore tend to favour parochial interests over sound economic sense, while markets will always deal efficiently with shortages and gluts. Politicians, as we all know too well, need big headlines; letting the market work doesn’t produce favourable headlines and, indeed, often produces the opposite.

Then, governments use other people’s money to run businesses. Companies have to manage with their own money. Generally, cost management does not work well with bureaucracies. Indeed, when cost efficiencies are inescapable, bureaucracies often make cuts that inconvenience the public, generating political pressure thereafter to reverse the cuts.

Freedom to operate

Usually, the CEO of a private sector company has the power to manage independently. He sets the policy, recruits the right people, and allocates resources very much as he thinks best to achieve the set objectives for the year. The board of directors generally does nothing more than reviewing the strategy, the risks, challenge some of the initiatives of the CEO and then ratify his moves, and will certainly fire him if he fails to deliver the promised results. This allows a company to act quickly when needed.

The next issue is the government is regulated by the government. It is the government’s job to make and enforce the rules that allow a society to function effectively. But it has a dismal record of regulating itself. Therefore, while we all know capitalism isn’t perfect. Indeed, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous description of democracy, it’s the worst economic system except for all the others. But the inescapable fact is that often it is the profit motive and competition that help to keep enterprises lean, efficient, innovative, encourage meritocracies and stay customer-oriented.

Regulator

For example take the five big loss makers which were once categorised as the ‘biggest monsters’ by Minister Sarath Amunugama; they have made operating losses amounting to billions of rupees. This is however not new for Sri Lanka. Many public enterprises continue to make big losses and get away with total impunity.

For instance, the two transport enterprises, Railways and SLTB, have made operating losses year after year since 2000, amassing cumulative losses of billions of rupees. If a private company ran them, they would have been rendered bankrupt many years ago. However, all these enterprises have been able to continue their business because the taxpayers have been forced to fund these institutions.

Either way, it is the public who has to bear the burden of such losses eventually. This is why many people do not want the government to run businesses, simply because they are not good at doing that. Instead they want them to act as a regulator and as a facilitator and leave commercial enterprise for the private sector to manage.

The committee that was set up to do oversight of State enterprises, COPE, has also done very little to improve the management and performance of enterprises. The intention of the committee was to ensure the compliance of financial discipline and proper management in public corporations and other semi-governmental bodies in which the Government of Sri Lanka has a financial stake. There over 60 institutions from banking, transport, shipping, hospitality, healthcare, water, aviation, construction and plantations that come under the purview of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Enterprises (COPE).

Restructuring

The allocation of these enterprises to ministries also needs change. If any reallocation of institutions to ministries is being considered in the future, it would be prudent to allocate them on the basis of similarity of subjects. At present subjects and institutions have been allocated to ministries illogically.

For example, all institutions under the Banking and Finance sector (excluding Employees Trust Fund Board), all institutions under Insurance and Lotteries and Hotel Developers Lanka Ltd. (under Marketing and Distribution), Lanka Hospitals Ltd. (former Apollo Hospital) have been allocated to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of State Enterprises.

The Appointing Authority to many of these institutions is the Treasury. But the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, which regulates all banks and financial institutions, is under the Ministry of National Policy and Economic Affairs. Thus the financial policy of the Government has to be implemented by two totally different ministries. This may result in conflicts of policy. It would be prudent to cluster the Central Bank and all State banks and Financial Institutions under a single Ministry. Allocation of the institutions under Insurance and Lotteries to this same ministry may be considered for purposes of rationalisation.

Similarly, other State-Owned Enterprises can be allocated to Ministries with related functions. For example, the institutions under Health can be slotted in under the Ministry of Health while the Ministry of Media can have the institutions named above under it. This clustering of institutions with similar functions in one Ministry will automatically ensure the concentration of experts in that field in that Ministry and synergy. It will enable the Minister in charge to strategise the further development of the functions and optimise the income generation potential of the institutions under him.

Another important factor is the marketing and promotional budgets of each of these institutions. The State banks, Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, National Lotteries Board and Development Lotteries Board have over Rs. 1 billion of marketing budgets among them. Thus the Minister in charge of these institutions wields huge influence over the entire country through these budgets

Way forward

Despite the wave of privatisation across developing markets in the 1980s and ’90s, State-Owned Enterprises continue to control vast swathes of national GDP: more than 50% in some African countries and up to 15% in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. These companies, controlled by a government or a government agency, struggle to meet the private sector’s performance levels, and potential profits remain unrealised. During the current downturn, some State-Owned Enterprises—even as they face increased pressure to become more efficient—have been called on to support government stimulus plans through higher spending and job retention. Nonetheless, research suggests that notwithstanding the constraints of the public-sector model and the tough economic times, these enterprises can significantly improve their performance.

Even in normal times, for example, the average return on assets at state enterprises is less than half that of the private sector, a McKinsey study showed a few years ago. One reason is that many such companies, in elsewhere, are shielded from competitive pressures, but other factors like skills and systems contribute greatly as well.

State enterprises often juggle multiple, unclear, or conflicting financial and social objectives. Political interference can prompt decisions that threaten a company’s financial goals. Finding talented workers at all levels is a problem too: the best and brightest gravitate toward the more lucrative private sector, and the tenure-based promotions common at state enterprises can conceal their best internal talent.

Yet there is hope like some markets have demonstrated. Some State-Owned Enterprises in emerging markets are closing the gap with their private-sector competitors. Petronas, the State-owned energy company in Malaysia, for example, began an operational-excellence campaign focusing on improved technical capabilities and a more effective working culture at its plants. After five years, the initiative delivered upward of $ 1 billion in savings and new revenues.

In the final analysis, if the Government is serious about driving up performance, the Government needs to play a bigger role in creating the right environment for State enterprises to excel, they need to support the better-performing State enterprises and draw from well-known best practices in the private sector, therefore they need to concentrate on the three areas of specific importance in the public sector: clarifying objectives and securing an explicit mandate, focusing scarce resources on areas with the highest financial impact, and redefining the talent proposition.

(The writer is a HR Thought Leader.)