Syrian opposition picks delegation to Geneva talks

A general view shows damaged buildings at al-Kalasa district of Aleppo, Syria in Aleppo, Syria, February 2, 2017. Picture taken February 2, 2017. REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki

Mon Feb 13, 2017

Syria's main opposition body on Sunday approved a new delegation to take part in Geneva peace talks later this month, which include Russian-backed blocs that have been critical of the armed insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad.

The High Negotiation Committee, (HNC) the main umbrella group, said in a statement after two-days of meetings in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, that the new 21-member negotiating team included members of two dissident alliances with which it has previously been at odds.

Those two alliances -- the so-called Moscow and Cairo groups -- have long disavowed the armed rebellion and insisted that political change can only come through peaceful activism. Their members include a former Syrian government minister with close ties to Moscow.

Mohammad Sabra, who was appointed as chief negotiator, told Saudi-owned Al-Hadath news channel that the delegation brought together various groups. He also accused unnamed foreign powers of trying to impose their views on the composition of the delegation, an apparent reference to Russia.

The body also chose a new head of the negotiating team, Nasr al Hariri, a veteran opposition figure from southern Syria.

The next round of U.N.-sponsored talks on the conflict, now in its sixth year, have been scheduled for Feb. 20.

The HNC said in the statement the goal of the negotiations was a political transition under U.N. auspices in which Assad had no role in the future of the country. But it steered away from its previous insistence the Syrian president should leave at the start of a transitional phase.

The HNC also said foreign powers had no right to present a vision of Syria's future political system without the consent of Syrians. Russian last month tabled the draft of a proposed new constitution for Syria, though it insisted the document had been circulated for the purposes of discussion only.

The HNC represented the opposition in Geneva talks last year. But it was not invited to recently convened talks in the Kazakh capital, Astana. The indirect talks between government and rebel delegates in Astana were held with the aim of shoring up a ceasefire brokered by Turkey and Russia.

(Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi and Tom Perry, editing by Larry King)

The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals Hate Conservatives

“CONSERVATIVES SEE LIBERALS AS MISGUIDED; LIBERALS SEE CONSERVATIVES AS EVIL.”—ORIGINAL SOURCE UNKNOWN

BY CHRISTOPHER COOK-SEPTEMBER 21, 2014

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?

The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals Hate Conservatives.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Frederick Douglass and Diplomacy

Put simply, Douglass reasoned, racism was unacceptable policy. Whiteness was no substitute for competence. Historical facts rather than alternative ones mattered. And the nation—the people—owed no allegiance to a state more concerned with flexing its muscles than admitting its moral failings.

by Brandon Byrd- Feb 11, 2017

( February 11, 2017 , Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Frederick Douglass was doing an amazing job and deserved more and more recognition. That idea dawned on Republican President Benjamin Harrison soon after he took up residence in the White House. And so, in June 1889, he chose Douglass as the next U.S. minister resident and consul general to Haiti.

Frederick Douglass and Diplomacy.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Famine looms in four countries as aid system struggles to cope, experts warn

 A Yemeni family in a camp for internally displaced people on the outskirts of the southern city of Taiz. Photograph: Ahmad Al-Basha/AFP/Getty Images

 People wait for food and water in Werder district, in Ethiopia’s Somali region. In Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, 12 million people are affected by food insecurity. Photograph: Mulugeta Ayene/AP

Karen McVeigh and Ben Quinn-Sunday 12 February 2017

Famine is looming in four different countries, threatening unprecedented levels of hunger and a global crisis that is already stretching the aid and humanitarian system like never before, experts and insiders warn.

Tens of millions of people in need of food aid in Yemen, South Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia are at the mercy not only of an overwhelmed aid system but also the protracted, mainly conflict-driven crises in their own countries, the humanitarian leaders say.

While the generosity of donors has risen sixfold over the past 20 years, unprecedented levels of humanitarian suffering have overtaken financial support. Donor funding reached a record high last year but only half of the requirements were met, according to the UN’s humanitarian chief, Stephen O’Brien.

Gareth Owen, humanitarian director of Save the Children, said: “The potential this year is we may have four famines looming, which is a truly scary thought and will stretch our resources. We are at a critical moment.”

Owen, who has 25 years’ experience working in the Horn of Africa, said the situation there bears comparison with Somalia before the famine that killed 260,000 people between 2010 and 2012.

“Right now, in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, there are 12 million people affected [by food insecurity]. These three countries together look as bad as Somalia in 2011. If you add South Sudan on top of that, with that conflict, and Nigeria, you have millions more. And Yemen has 18 million people. That’s creating this real concern that we are facing a major crisis that we have not seen before.”

The UN has launched a $2.1bn (£1.6bn) appeal for Yemen this year, its largest ever for the country. It is requesting a record $22.2bn overall in 2017, an increase on the $22.1bn asked for in 2016.

Mark Goldring, the CEO of Oxfam, said that while he believes the increased donations mean more vulnerable people than ever are being reached, it is no longer enough.

“If we look back over the last 20 years, funds have increased sixfold, so within that there is a positive story that we are reaching many of the people in need,” said Goldring. “But neither the funding nor the capacity is enough.”

Oxfam’s policy adviser, Debbie Hillier, described the humanitarian system as “medieval”, likening the appeal procedure to someone whose house was burning down having to raise money to pay the fire brigade to extinguish it.

Goldring shares Hillier’s belief that reform is crucial. “We can’t carry on relying on individual appeal after appeal, because they are time-bound and partial – they play to what’s in the news.”

The complexity of the current humanitarian crises also play a part, Goldring said. The potential famine areas flagged up in January by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, a US-based agency, are conflict-related.

According to Goldring, aid workers are struggling to reach people due to security constraints in these countries. He contrasted the situation last year in Ethiopia with the potential famines in conflict zones like Yemen.

“Last year I went to Ethiopia at the height of the food shortage. I was told in terms of food and crops that it was worse than the famine of 1985. But in terms of supplies it was much, much [better]. That’s because the government and the international system was working better.

“There will be hunger in Kenya, but it won’t compare to the level of suffering in Somalia.”

In South Sudan, which UN investigators have warned is on the brink of genocide, the government remains one of the biggest impediments towards famine being declared. All factions in the country’s civil war have been accused of using hunger as a weapon of war, and humanitarian groups complain that attacks on aid workers and bureaucratic interference are preventing supplies reaching tens of thousands of people. Results from the latest situation analysis by the Integrated Food Security Phase 

Classification – the body that provides evidence to governments to enable them to declare a famine – are due to be published in the next two weeks.

Sara Pantuliano, managing director at the Overseas Development Institute, said the aid system needs a complete overhaul to respond to the needs of a changing world.

“What is scandalous is that we are in 2017 and we still have to think about a famine where we should be able to manage things so that we don’t get into that situation,” said Pantuliano.

She said 80% of the situations where humanitarians work are “protracted and predictable”, yet the models are designed for an immediate crisis (pdf).

A joint Unicef-World Food Programme study in 2014 concluded that increased investment in risk-prone areas could reduce humanitarian response costs by more than 50%.

“We are definitely seeing an increase in the level and magnitude of need,” said Pantuliano. “But it’s also because the system is ineffective and doesn’t use resources in a timely way. Very often the response is too late.

“We know where we might end up in June if the response is not dramatic, and enough.”

Humanitarian groups have warned there is only a small window in which to avoid a repeat of the 2011 famine in Somalia, where hundreds of thousands of people starved to death after a slow response from donors.

Toby Lanzer, the UN’s senior humanitarian representative in Africa’s Sahel region, said: “It’s fair to say that today there really are more mega-crises, if you want to call them that, than we have had to deal with before. Donor purses are very stretched and at the same time you have publics, whether it is here in Britain or elsewhere, who are thinking: ‘This Syria thing has been going on forever, we are paying and my A&E [service] in Burnley is not working that well.’

“On the one hand you have these crises, a public that is more reticent and you also have a press in Britain that does not understand the nuances of why aid makes a lot of sense.”

Another factor in the mix for increasingly complex humanitarian crises is the lack of reporting on the ground. Yemen and South Sudan, for instance, appear at the top of a list of most dangerous countries for journalists, according to Reporters Without Borders.

While the food security situation in Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen is being monitored by the Disasters Emergency Committee, an organisation that coordinates disaster response on behalf of 13 British charities, it is running an emergency appeal for only one, Yemen.

“The DEC has built up a good reputation with the public, so if we launch an appeal they know that something bad is happening,” said Saleh Saaed, the head of the organisation.

So far, the other three crises do not meet DEC’s criteria – unmet humanitarian need on a large scale, DEC members on the ground in the country concerned, and public sympathy, which the organisation acknowledges is difficult to measure. However, media coverage offers a useful proxy, according to Saeed.

“Sadly, although they are covered [by the media] it is not sustained enough to appeal to the British public,” said Saeed.

The Yemen appeal, which has raised £17m since its launch in December, followed strong broadcast reporting from BBC’s Fergal Keane, Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy and others from inside the country.

Saaed acknowledged the difficulties of the current system of appeals, describing it as “chicken and egg”.

“Everyone knows if we responded in a better resourced way and earlier on, we could reduce the suffering and save lives and it would be cheaper,” said Saeed. “As a global community we haven’t been able to [tackle] this issue of how do you address famine? How do you get the resources before it’s too late?”

We haven’t got time to waste when it comes to the environment

A worker looks at the Rapu Rapu open pit mine in Albay province, central Philippines. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco

By Emma Richards - 11th February 2017 

PHILIPPINE Environment and Natural Resources Secretary, Regina Lopez, made an incredibly bold and rare stand this week against the behemoth of industry that is the mining sector.

Lopez ordered the closure of over half of the Philippines’ mines, and this has set a cat amongst the pigeons of mining magnates. Industry groups have labelled the order “illegal and unfair”, but Lopez has stuck to her guns and refused to err from her position even a little bit.

In a world in which we have a climate change denier in the White House and see the puppet strings of politicians continuously pulled by the powers of big business, I find Lopez’s resolve refreshing and encouraging.

A staunch environmentalist, Lopez has waged war on mining practices in the Philippines since her appointment back in July of last year, vowing to punish any operations that are deemed to be harming the environment. President Rodrigo Duterte, who appointed her due to her record as an environmental activist dedicated to the poor, has largely stuck by her radical decisions.

SEE ALSO: Philippines: Eco-warrior stands firm on her order of mine closures

Her order follows an audit of all mines in the country that was carried out in an attempt to determine if their practices were sustainable and responsible. On receipt of the audit report, Lopez announced the closure of 23 mines and the suspension of five, with only 12 passing the audit.

She has since been met with a barrage of criticism, and not just from mining companies. A plethora of ministers have attacked her, and a quick Google search will show a none-too-pleased response in the press and from business owners.

She has been accused of using an anti-mining audit company; of arrogance; of creating disunity within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); and even of being too rich and of not caring about communities as she is heiress to a fortune. On top of all that, she’s been called an environmental waco.

Philippine Environment Secretary Regina Lopez speaks in front of a chart on mining issues during a press briefing in Manila, Philippines February 9, 2017. Picture taken February 9, 2017. Source: Reuters/Erik De Castro

Within the torrent of personal slights that aim to distract from the real issue, there are some legitimate concerns and counter-arguments that are being raised over the ban.

The main and overriding concern is the potential loss of jobs, 1.2 million people stand to be affected by the closures. Despite Lopez’s claims that she will replace the jobs as “a green economy can create more jobs than mining could ever imagine”, this is a fair concern for those families that stand to be affected. But it is not an insurmountable one.

The Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez has also expressed concern over the impact of Lopez’s order on the national economy. The Philippines will likely take a hit for this with mining contributing just 1 percent to the overall economy, and they will likely need to import resources from other areas.

Other counter arguments include that it will not stop the problem of environmental degradation as illegal mining will continue; that plans to rehabilitate the environment and plant trees once the mining is complete should be sufficient to counteract any damage done; and that the implementation of strict rules and regulations is all that is needed to control and monitor the mining companies.

SEE ALSO: Team advised Philippine mine suspensions, not closures – sources

In my opinion, these are not the most robust of arguments and to hear these impassioned pleas, many of which are coming from the mining companies themselves, I have to say that I remain unmoved.

These are economic and financial justifications, and it is a rationale that predominantly benefits the mining industry. There will undoubtedly be consequences to Lopez’s order and ripples will be felt throughout the Philippines but they are ripples that can be managed, can be fixed and can be mitigated.

The arguments against the closures are weak in the face of the absolute behemoth counter argument of climate change and environmental degradation.

Just last month, the Director-General of WWF International, Marco Lambertini, made a stark claim that our planet is at breaking point, a message supported by much of the scientific world.

He claims “the undeniable truth is that we continue to do great damage to the planet and we haven’t learnt how to grow our economy without harming nature.”

Rescuers sift through the earth and mud Friday Jan. 6, 2012, a day after a landslide occurred at the mining community of Pantukan, Compostela Valley in southern Philippines killing at least 22 people. Source: AP Photo

For too long we have been exploiting the environment for our financial gain, and it has treated us well, it has bought us the lifestyle we so enjoy today. But surely we all knew the good times had to end somewhere, and that somewhere is now.

“For the first time in Earth’s history, people and businesses are overpowering the planet using resources faster than they can be regenerated. Unsustainable agriculture, fisheries, mining and energy are leading to unprecedented habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, pollution and climate change,” Lambertini said.

We need to begin to decouple economic development from environmental degradation and understand that the exploitation of one will lead to the unsustainability of the other. As Lambertini puts it, “The equation is a simple one: we will not build a stable, prosperous and equitable future for humanity on a degraded planet.”

It is at this crucial time that the planet needs courageous and responsible leadership. We need a leadership that is willing to stand up to big business and defend what is right rather than what is lucrative.

Lopez seems to understand this. She will no doubt continue to take criticism and opposition for her stand point but her commitment to environmental protection is a noble one. Leaders around the world should take note; our planet is at breaking point and a planet on the edge will eventually turn against us. It is too late to continue to pander to mining companies, we simply haven’t got the time to waste.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent

Side Effects Of Beetroot Juice You Didn’t Know About

Watch Out For These Side Effects Of Beetroot Juice

• Kidney Stones
• Colored Urine And Bowel Movements
• Unsafe Dips In Blood Pressure
• Sugar High?

by CureJoy Editorial-Feb 8, 2017 

Beet juice is hard to swallow and an acquired taste, but the promise of better oxygen supply, improved stamina are reason enough to make you grin and bear it. Unfortunately, the risk of developing kidney stones due to the high oxalate content of beetroots, and the possibility of stomach upsets, or unsafe dips in blood pressure can be off-putting.

Beetroot juices are a popular addition to juice bars and spa menus, with the promise of helping your digestion, boosting endurance, and even lowering blood pressure. Whatever your motivations for having this deep red juice, you’d be wise to monitor just how much you’re having. As it turns out, there can be too much of a good thing.

 

Why We Love Beetroot Juice

Beetroot juice pulps the goodness of a beetroot into an easy to consume, nutrient rich serving that’s quick to have and easy to make. This, aided by the beet-juice craze that’s swept the nation over the past few years, make it a popular presence in health-conscious menus and fitness plans. The nitrates in it have been credited with helping athletes improve endurance and stamina by boosting their oxygen supply to muscles through vasodilation. The nitrates once converted to nitric oxide in your body can help your blood vessels to widen and relax, allowing the flow of a higher amount of oxygen-rich blood to your muscles. This means you can go further or longer without feeling as fatigued as you normally do due to reduced “oxygen cost” of exercise.¹

Research indicates that beet juice, as with other inorganic nitrates can boost oxygen delivery to your heart, improve overall health of blood vessels, increase duration of exercise, and lower your blood pressure. This lowering of blood pressure, in turn, could lower risk of stroke and ischaemic heart disease.²

Plus, beets and the juice from them are packed with antioxidants, fiber, and folate, all of which have a multitude of health benefits including aiding your digestive health, fighting off cancer, and cutting inflammation.³

Side Effects Of Too Much Beetroot Juice

As tempting as all these health benefits may seem, chugging down gallons of beet juice may not be a good idea. Here’s side effects of beetroot juice you must watch out for:

1. Kidney Stones

The single most important side effect to be aware of is the impact on your kidneys. Patients with kidney problems or those at high risk of developing kidney stones may be better off avoiding beetroot juice. The NHS actually lists beetroot among the foods to avoid due to their oxalate content, for those looking to prevent kidney stone formation.⁴ Oxalates are a compound from which kidney stones are formed.⁵ While the root of the plant is lower in oxalate than the leaves, it is still high enough to merit caution.⁶

2. Colored Urine And Bowel Movements

Also known as beeturia, this phenomenon sees your body produce pink or red colored urine. For some, their stool may also be this alarming color and can be easily mistaken for blood in the stool or urine. While alarming, this isn’t a cause for concern and is usually harmless.The dark colored betanin pigment responsible for this trademark reddish pink hue of the beetroot merely color your urine and bowel movements. This condition should pass in 48 hours or less, and stools and urine after this should return to their normal color.⁷Once you stop consumption of beet juice or beets, anything beyond this 48-hour timeline may need to be investigated by a medical professional.

3. Unsafe Dips In Blood Pressure

Beet juice can lower your blood pressure which is good news if you’re trying to keep it in check. However, if you combine regular intake of beet juice with other medication that lowers blood pressure, including drugs like Viagra, it may cause your blood pressure to dip unsafely. Added to that, extended vasodilation and overconsumption of vasodilating substances could even result in cardiovascular problems. The drop in blood pressure and the cardiovascular collapse may even be followed by the person going into a coma. If unchecked, this could be fatal. While research has centered around synthetic vasodilators, you may want to be careful until further study is done on the effect prolonged use of beet juice.⁸

4. Stomach Upset

Beetroot juice when consumed in very large serving sizes in one go can leave you with an upset stomach. Some suggest you try and stick to consuming half an ounce to an ounce of the juice at first, combined with other juices so that your body learns to adjust to it. ⁹ There have also been reports of gastrointestinal illness linked to raw beetroot consumption.¹⁰ The fructans, a form of short-chain carbohydrates, can be problematic for those with a sensitive gut, including people with irritable bowel syndrome.¹¹

5. Sugar High?

There’s no getting around the sugar content in beetroots and beet juice. A 100 gm serving of raw beets has nearly 7 gm of sugar. Assuming you make a serving of juice using just this amount of beets, that’s a hefty amount of simple sugars you’re getting.¹² However, it is prudent to note that while its glycemic index around 64(medium on the scale), its glycemic load which measures the actual effect of a food on your body’s blood sugar(which factors in carb content as well), is just 5(considered low). In other words, you can safely consume beetroot juice provided it has no added sugars, even if you’re watching your sugar intake. Just be sure you balance it out with other foods and keep total sugar and carb intake for the day within prescribed limits for your health profile.¹³

6. Blood Pressure Regulation Issues

Prolonged intake of vasodilators may cause your body to eventually stop producing nitric oxide, according to some theories. If this is true, then in the absence of a natural blood pressure regulating mechanism, you open yourself up to the risk of high blood pressure in the long run. There is a divided view on whether or not the quantity you get from beets is enough to get you in trouble. But to err on the side of caution, side with the experts who warn that while natural nitrates are certainly safer than synthetic nitrates, having too much of these too, could prove harmful.¹⁴

How Much Is Too Much?

Nutritionists suggest keeping intake to under eight ounces a serving, taken no more than thrice a week. That’s the equivalent of about two beets run through your juicer for each serving. If you find the flavor off-putting, combine beet juice with other sweeter or palate pleasing fruit like oranges or apples.¹⁵ According to some health gurus you can have beet juice daily without a problem. But the reality is you need to consult with your doctor before taking such large quantities of the juice. If you are already on blood pressure lowering medication, this could jeopardize your health. Be sure that there will be no adverse reactions or side effects based on your medical history and other drugs you may be taking. And do not use this as a substitute for your prescribed medication without first checking with your doctor.

Constitutional Tensions and Mixed Messages

Rajan Philips-February 11, 2017, 6:58 pm 

When it seemed that there was nothing left and it was all over insofar as the government’s commitment to constitutional changes was concerned, there were new developments last week that are pleasantly surprising and politically reassuring. The first sign of hope emanated from a meeting President Sirisena had last Wednesday (February 8) with representatives of about 50 civil society organizations at the Presidential Secretariat. The second sign of optimism came from the appearance of External Affairs Minister MangalaSamaraweera at the Foreign Correspondents Association gathering on Tuesday night. A third pat on the back for the constitutional initiative came from former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, but she characteristically made it controversial by compounding it with her opinion on war crimes investigation.

The meeting with the President was all about the constitution with a sting on corruption at the tail end. It apparently lasted nearly two hours and was only the third such meeting after the January 2015 election. Let us at once draw the first lesson for civil society groups before going further: have more meetings like this; even once a month; crowd him (the President) out with meetings and ward off evil forces casting their spell on him.

According to civil society representatives at the meeting, the President was quite committed both as President and as the leader of the SLFP to finalizing the new constitutional draft and taking it to the people for their approval at a national referendum. Interestingly, Minister Samaraweera was also bullish before the foreign correspondents about taking the draft constitution to a referendum. His colleague Lakshman Kiriella was even more categorical in parliament, declaring that the UNP with the support of the SLFP was determined to go to the people for their vote on the new constitution. To cap it all, SLFP General Secretary and Minister Mahinda Amaraweera reportedly confirmed on Thursday night that he was on board with the referendum idea. What is going on?

It is not clear whether the new developments are a co-ordinated response to the efforts of the SLFP Ministers to minimize the scope of the constitutional initiative to electoral reform and retaining the 13th Amendment and to avoid having a referendum. The SLFP Ministers do not want to abolish the executive presidency. They want to keep it now that the two-term limit has been restored by the 19th Amendment. They even threw the carrot of a second term to win the President over to their side. They have suddenly become defenders of the letter, rather than the spirit, of the Common Opposition Manifesto in January 2015, which promised to limit constitutional changes to those that could be approved by a two-thirds majority in parliament without going to a referendum. Never mind they were on the other side in January 2015, and not to mention the time-span envisaged for the first stage of constitutional change: 100 Days.

The trouble with the SLFP ministers, including former SLFP ministers who are now part of the Joint Opposition (JO), is that they have been on all sides of every issue and have voted ‘for and against’ on the same issue at different times; they have lost all their political credibility. Their opposition to the constitutional initiative, whether from within the government or from the JO outside, is neither principled nor even cleverly opportunistic; theirs is the politics of zombies, the living dead. Their situation is the combined result of the current political system and their lack of political drive. They have no political fire left in their bellies, if there was ever one. It is true President Sirisena needs their numbers in parliament, but only to break the logjam of the current system, not to perpetuate it. They need him more than he needs them.

It is not that the UNPers in parliament are a wholly inspirational lot. They have no fire either in their bellies and need candles under their backsides to keep them on their toes. But political circumstances have brought them to a situation where they can undo much of the constitutional damage their predecessors imposed on the country in 1977. To their credit, they are prepared to do it and carry with them the SLFP zombies to make up the requisite two-thirds majority in parliament. They are even ready to seek the approval in a referendum. Minister Samaraweera expressed confidence that a referendum victory on the constitution is achievable, while acknowledging that there is risk involved, but one that is worth taking. Saman Ratnapriya, President of the Government Nurses’ Association and who attended the civil society meeting with President Sirisena, was enthusiastic: "We are ready to go all out campaigning for success in a referendum."

Perils of Referendums

Referendums are risky and unpredictable because every voter can take the opportunity to vote on any issue that preoccupies the mind and not the referendum question. Oftentimes, it becomes a vote against the person or government asking the question. In Sri Lanka there is no alternative because a referendum is required if substantive constitutional changes are intended. A broad electoral mandate to overhaul the constitution could be used in certain situations as a substitute for a referendum, but even that is not practical in Sri Lanka given the system of two national elections we have, one for the executive and another for the legislature. The only way to avoid a referendum is to limit the constitutional changes to those that require only a two-thirds majority in parliament. That is certainly not the desire of the civil society organizations who met with the President last week.

The civil society desire for constitutional change is something quite different from the compulsions for the earlier constitutional changes in 1972 and 1978. They were both ‘government-led’ and were achieved by using general election victory as mandate for constitutional overhaul. The movement for abolishing the presidency and other constitutional changes arose outside the political establishment as a response to the over-concentration and abuse of presidential power and the pervasion of corruption throughout the executive system. The election of President Sirisena in January 2015 and the victory of the Sirisena-Wickremasinghe government in the later parliamentary election were political responses to the civil society cry for clean government and constitutional change.

The government’s difficulty is that its leaders have not realized that they will not have the credibility to push through constitutional changes without at the same time demonstrating clean government. The two must go together, or neither will. The failure to clean up government machinery is also the reason why SLFP Ministers are able to cook up schemes for stalling constitutional changes. It is also the reason why the Joint Opposition is able to find its elixir for political survival without offering any worthwhile political alternatives. If the government goes to a referendum on constitutional change without first cleaning up government working past and present, the people will turn their vote into a vote against the Central Bank bond scam, against the Port City, against the perceived sellout in Hambantota, against its megapolis priorities and rural neglect, and a host of other irritants.

The government also has to manage a double-edged sword in regard to the question of devolution of powers. It is a positive sign that government ministers and civil society leaders are confident about going to the people with a full constitutional package that addresses power devolution and national reconciliation. This has never happened before. Equally, the TULF leaders are also keen on having the new constitution endorsed by the people in a referendum rather than having it stick-handled through agreements between leaders. Both have two detractors to contend with. In the south, they will face criticism that the government is caving in to the pressures of the UNHRC and the Tamil diaspora. Among the Tamils, there is cynicism whether the government’s new messages on the constitution are just prep-work for the upcoming UNHRC sessions in Geneva.

There is another school of thought that wants the government to approach the new Trump Administration in the US to either dilute or get rid of the UNHRC resolution. There are two difficulties here. The current resolution is co-sponsored by the Sri Lankan government, and unless there is ‘regime change’ in Sri Lanka the co-sponsorship is not going to be rescinded. As for approaching President Trump, the less said the better, at least for now.

“His name is Kamaleswaran”

L-R (first row): Alakuthurai Parameshwari, Ananthan  Annamam, Arumaiththurau  Vallippillai, Arumaithura  Thanaledsumi, Kanthappodi  Kamalathevi 
L-R: (second row): Pakkiyarasa  Vasanthini, Ramajeyam  Kamaleshwaran, Rasenthiram Karunakaran, Sanmuganathan  Nithanthan, Sellaththurai  Pakkiyarasa
L-R: (third row): Sivakolunthu  Sinnaththurai, Vadivel  Nadarasa, Vinayagamoorthi  Suthakaran, Thangavel  Kalathevi, Kanagarasa  Subathirasa

Justice Denied to Survivors of the Kumarapuram Massacre

Featured image courtesy Shehan Peruma

“Shoot me but, please don’t kill my children,” pleaded Kanthappoody Kamaladevi with her arms outstretched over her head, just before she was shot dead outside her home in Kumarapuram, Killiveddy, by the Sri Lanka Army (SLA).

MARISA DE SILVA on 02/11/2017

February 11th, 2017, marks the 21st year commemoration of the brutal Kumarapuram massacre of 26 Tamil villagers, by army personnel belonging to the 58th and Dehiwatte Camps, and the Kiliveddy check point. Of those killed, six were women, five men and 13 children (below the age of 18). Also amongst those killed was 1 pregnant mother and a 15 year old girl, who was allegedly gang-raped by a group of army personnel before she was killed. Twenty six other villagers were also severely injured.

His name is Kamaleswaran.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

War victims demand return their homelands

Feb 11, 2017

War victims at the resettle village of Sooriyapuram staged a protest and demand government to return their homelands at the village of Pilakkudiyirippu which was occupied by Sri Lanka Air Force.

According to protesters who sat down on the roadside in front of SL Air Force at Pilakkudiyirippu in the district of Mulativu said that they never stop their struggle until they receive their homelands.

Talking to Lanka News web Sudish Kaushalya 034), a mother of three children said that she joined with the protest since it was started on January 31, 2017 due to failure to receive her homeland at the village of Pilakkudiyirippu.

“I am living at the resettled village of Sooriyapuram since 2012 and suffered a lot due to lack of infrastructure facilities,”

She added, “I have over 40 perch of land at the village of Pilakkudiyirippu. It was a good place for cultivation. The government promised to return the land and cheated. Therefore I joined with 84 villagers who were lived at the village of Pilakkudiyirippu who demand their lands.

“I have a government issued permit certificate for my land.” She said.

Addressing the media after the discussion with protesters, Herman Kumara, director of NaFSO said that President has a duty bound to deliver justice for victims.

“We try our best to get the support from the people in South for their struggle.”

He added, “We urged authorities to return the lands to the village of Pilakkudiyirippu.

According to protester SL Air Force has been occupied over 53 acres of lands which belongs to the villagers of Pilakkudiyirippu.

Sri Lanka: Is Right to Property a Human Right?

The property rights of business, industries and of entrepreneur nature are considered essential in the present-day society and in economies. It is true that any attempt to make haphazard abolition or containment of such private property would invite disaster like in Pol Pot’s Cambodia. This was also the case during the forced collectivization efforts in the Soviet Union.

by Laksiri Fernando-Feb 11, 2017

(February 11, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Is right to property a human right? I really doubt it, in its unqualified and undefined terms. It is extremely controversial. This question has become important in the context that the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights on Constitutional Reforms has proposed it to be included in a new constitution. In human rights, there are still areas which are controversial, and the ‘right to property’ is one of them. The important thing is to consider ‘human rights’ as an evolving conception and not to take anything as God given (even there is one or several!) or dogmatic.

Sri Lanka Is Right to Property a Human Right.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd