Canadian judge rules in favor of forcibly adopted First Nations survivors

Government is responsible for trauma of 16,000 indigenous children removed from families in ‘Sixties Scoop’ between 1965 and 1984, judge said

A group of aboriginal children sit with a nun in 1940 at a residential school in Canada, a system that attempted to eradicate indigenous culture and assimilate First Nations children. Photograph: Handout/Reuters

Julien Gignac in Toronto-Tuesday 14 February 2017

After a bitter legal battle that has lasted nearly a decade, a Canadian judge has ruled that the government is liable for the harm inflicted on thousands of First Nations children who were forcibly removed from their families and adopted by non-indigenous families.

Between 1965 and 1984, around 16,000 indigenous children were fostered or put up for adoption in an episode which became known as the “Sixties Scoop”.

Ontario superior court justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling Tuesday found in favour of survivors of the operation and their families, who argued that the forced removal robbed the children of their cultural identity and caused emotional damage that has resonated for generations.

“There is … no dispute that great harm was done,” Belobaba wrote. “The ‘scooped’ children lost contact with their families. They lost their aboriginal language, culture and identity. Neither the children nor their foster or adoptive parents were given information about the children’s aboriginal heritage or about the various educational and other benefits that they were entitled to receive. The removed children vanished ‘scarcely without a trace’.”

The class-action lawsuit was launched last year, after nearly seven years of delays, mostly because of appeals by the federal government. The plaintiffs sued the federal government for C$1.3bn in damages, though a settlement has yet to be reached.

Belobaba accepted the argument that the federal government did not consult with indigenous parties before provincial agents moved in to apprehend 16,000 children from Ontario reserves.

“The evidence supporting the plaintiff on this is, frankly, insurmountable. In any event, Canada offered no evidence to suggest otherwise,” he said in the decision.

“The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff’s experts is that the loss of their aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives,” Balobaba wrote. “The loss of aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides.”

Canada has never officially apologised for removing the children – a failure which still needs to be set right, according to Michael Cheena, of Toronto’s Council Fire Native Cultural Centre.

“Reconciliation means acknowledging historical injustices and taking action to end colonialism,” he said. “These policies eradicated spiritual practices, cultural identity and language.”

Indigenous affairs minister Carolyn Bennett said the government would not appeal the decision and that the government wanted to meet survivors by the end of the month to discuss a settlement.

John Fox, 56, one of the plaintiffs in the case, was taken from the Wikwemikong First Nation when he was 11 years old, and suffered years of abuse with the family he was eventually placed with.

“There was no more freedom,” he said. “I couldn’t speak my language. It’s taken all this time to have balance in my life and feel better about myself.”

Jeffery Wilson, a legal adviser for the plaintiffs, said the ruling gave a clear message to the Canadian government. 

“The court has found what took place is lawfully wrong,” he said. But he added that the lawsuit was not just about compensation. “It’s about providing restorative help for the plaintiffs who have been traumatised and kept waiting because of the litigation process.”

Marcia Brown Martel, one of the lead complainants in the lawsuit said the ruling was “a step closer to reconciliation”.

“After so many years, I feel like a great weight has been lifted from my heart. Our voices were finally heard and listened to. Our pain was acknowledged. I hope no one sees this as a loss for our government. It is a gain for all of us,” she said. “There is still work to be done, but my hope is that we can now undertake that work with open hearts and open minds.”

Armyworms are wreaking havoc in southern Africa. Why it’s a big deal

Kenneth Wilson-2017-02-13

A combination of native African armyworms and Fall armyworms from the Americas are ravaging staple crops across southern Africa. If uncontrolled, they have the potential to cause major food shortages. The Conversation Africa’s energy and environment editor Ozayr Patel asked Kenneth Wilson to explain the threat and what can be done about it.

What are armyworms, where do they come from and how do they travel?

Armyworms are the caterpillar stage of moths belonging mainly to the genus Spodoptera. They are called armyworms because when they have ravaged a crop they march along the ground like a vast army of worms in search of more food. There are at least eight countries in southern Africa that have been hit by outbreaks of armyworms.

This sequence of outbreaks began in mid-December 2016 in Zambia and has spread rapidly ever since. It is now as far south as South Africa. Because armyworms feed on many of the staple food crops they have the potential to create food shortages in the region.

The recent outbreaks in southern Africa appear to be a combination of the native African armyworm (Spodoptera exempta) and a new invasive species called the Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda). This new species is endemic to tropical and subtropical regions of Central and South America, where it causes considerable damage to maize and other crops.

The Fall armyworm was first formally identified as being on the continent as recently as January 2016 in West Africa, including Nigeria and its neighbours.

It is unclear how it reached Africa from the Americas but it’s likely it arrived on imported plants. It’s also possible that it migrated across the Atlantic on favourable winds over multiple generations.

It is not yet known whether the recent outbreaks in southern Africa are derived from the earlier West African ones. But Fall armyworms are known to be strong migrants in the Americas. Every year Fall armyworms fly from Mexico and the southern states of the US to Canada.

What makes them so devastating?

Both African and Fall armyworms do most damage to the staple cereal crops such as maize, wheat, sorghum, millet and rice. They also eat pasture grasses which has an impact on livestock production.

The African armyworm – they can be 3cm long – can reach densities as intense as 1000 caterpillars per square metre, quickly razing crops to the ground. On maize, the number of caterpillars per plant is, of course, much lower but it can cause just as much of an impact. The insects strip the leaves of even mature maize plants bare.

Unlike their African cousins, the Fall armyworm also feeds on a range of non-cereal crops. Nearly 100 different host plant species have been recorded. These include cotton, soybeans, groundnut, peanut, potato, sweet potato, spinach, tomato, sweet peppers, cabbage and tobacco.

Damage to maize is likely to have the biggest impact on farmers in southern Africa because it’s the main staple food crop in the region.

The impact of the Fall armyworm is likely to be devastating because it eats the leaves of the plant as well as its reproductive parts. This damages or destroys the maize cob itself.

Where have the most devastating attacks occurred? What was the result?

In 2012-2013 the African armyworm cut Zambia’s maize production by 11%. The latest outbreaks could lead to losses of up to 40% as an estimated 124,000 hectares of maize has been attacked.

In neighbouring Zimbabwe, seven out of eight maize-producing provinces have had armyworm outbreaks, and in Malawi at least 9,000 hectares have been attacked. Figures are not yet available for the other five southern African countries currently affected.

What are the potential economic consequences if the problem is not arrested?

It is too early to say what the impact will be on food production in the region. Chemical pesticides have been mobilised in most countries, though their efficacy has been questioned. In Brazil, where armyworms can breed all year round, controlling them costs an estimated US$600 million a year. The cost of control in southern Africa hasn’t been determined yet.

But it’s likely to be substantial given that many litres of imported chemicals have already been bought by countries desperate to protect their crops. This means that even if control proves to be effective it will have been costly.

The economic consequences could be severe if the Fall armyworm persists and spreads throughout the sub-Saharan Africa region.

What is the best way to stop them damaging crops?

Chemical pesticides can be effective against both armyworm species. But resistance to many chemicals is an issue for the Fall armyworm throughout its native range. It’s not known whether there is pesticide resistance in the Fall armyworms blighting southern Africa.

The variable efficacy may be due to genetic resistance, or it might be as a result of the way in which the spray is applied. The Fall armyworms are often inaccessible to insecticides because of their tendency to hide in the whorls and reproductive parts of the host plant.

Research is needed to work out which chemical is the best to control the strain of Fall armyworm in southern Africa.

But there are alternative approaches.

In parts of their native range in the Americas, genetically-modified Bt maize is grown to combat the Fall armyworm. This may also be an option for South Africa and some other countries where GM crops are already grown. But many parts of Africa do not allow or welcome GM varieties. And Fall armyworm has also evolved resistance to some Bt toxins, with some evidence for cross resistance.

There are non-chemical, biological pesticides that could also be effective. These are pesticides derived from natural diseases of insects, such as viruses, fungi and bacteria. I have been involved in the development of a highly effective biopesticide against African armyworm in Tanzania. But this still needs to go through the commercialisation and registration process, which is both costly and time consuming.

A similar biopesticide has also been developed against the Fall armyworm, but again this is not yet registered for use in Africa.

Biopesticides tend to be effective against a much narrower range of species than chemicals, which is good for the environment. But it means that they can only be used for a limited number of pests, often making them more expensive than chemicals.

There are also some other indigenous approaches that could be effective. This includes the use of local plant extracts like Tephrosia vogelli and neem, to produce botanical pesticides, and the addition of sand to maize whorls where armyworms are feeding.

Only time will tell what the full impact of this armyworm invasion will have.

University of Vienna urged to cancel talk by genocide advocate Ayelet Shaked

10 February 2017

Patients in the UK could face delays getting new drugs if Britain withdraws from the EU's medicines regulator, ministers have been warned.

Former UK regulator Sir Alasdair Breckenridge said new cancer drugs could be among those affected.

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said he did not expect the UK to remain within the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The Department for Health said Brexit offered new opportunities to bring timely access to new drugs.

Sir Alasdair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The UK market compared to the European market of course is small and they may decide not to come to the United Kingdom.

"So therefore there will be delay in getting new drugs - important new drugs, anti-cancer drugs, anti-infective drugs - for patients in the UK."

What might Brexit mean for medicines?

Will EU bodies stay or go after Brexit?

The EMA authorises drugs for use across the EU and is currently based in the UK, although it is expected to leave after Brexit.

Sir Alasdair - who was the chairman of the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for almost a decade - said companies could be slower to seek permission for Britain alone, as they may need to pay for a separate assessment of their product for use in the country.

His concerns echo those expressed by the current MHRA chairman Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, who said the UK could be at the back of the queue behind Japan, the US and the EU when drugs are introduced.

In previously unreported comments in January, he told peers: "One of the biggest worries I have about Brexit and standing alone as a regulator is that we are only 3% of the world market for new drugs and if we are not careful we are going to be at the back of the queue."

The UK needed to carry out regulation more efficiently to cope, he added.

'Two-year delays'

In January Jeremy Hunt said he did not expect the UK to remain within the EMA but was "hopeful" of being able to continue working closely with the regulator.

"Separate regulatory arrangements" would be put in place, he added.

David Jeffreys, the vice-president of Eisai - a Japanese drugs firm that employs 450 people in the UK - said British patients could face delays of up to two years.

He said: "The early innovative medicines will be applied for in the USA, in Japan and through the European system and the UK will be in the second or indeed the third wave so UK patients may be getting medicines, 12, 18, 24 months later than they would if we remained in the European system."

Mr Jeffreys, who also speaks for the trade body the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), said they wanted the UK to agree a co-operation deal with the EMA, even if it did not remain part of the EU system.

The former chief executive of the MHRA, Sir Kent Woods, said he believed an agreement could be reached between the UK and the EU for drug regulation in the future, but was concerned about the issue getting absorbed in a wider debate about trade terms.

Moving the EMA from London could put its work overseeing the safety of medicines imported from outside the EU at risk, he added.

'Faster access'

The Department of Health said ensuring patients have timely access to safe and effective medicines remains a priority for the government.

A spokeswoman added: "In fact, Brexit brings opportunities in this area, and we will be focused on whether we can secure even faster access to the latest innovations for British patients.

"So we are already taking action to ensure the UK continues to be a world leader and our cross-agency Brexit taskforce is considering the future regulatory roles the MHRA could adopt."

The EMA is subject to rulings by the European Court of Justice, and Prime Minister Theresa May has said the UK must be outside the court's jurisdiction.

“We will not move from here until we get our land back”: from inside the Pilavu protest

13 Feb  2017

The Pilakudiyirippu (Pilavu) protest for land return enters its third week. With each morning that breaks at their base outside a Sri Lankan air force camp, the protestors reaffirm their resolve. --Model village with roads named after alleged war criminals

The Pilakudiyirippu (Pilavu) protest for land return enters its third week. With each morning that breaks at their base outside a Sri Lankan air force camp, the protestors reaffirm their resolve. 

By Dharsha Jegatheeswaran and Mario Arulthas, for Tamil Guardian | Jaffna

“We will not move from here until we get our land back,” the paatti (grandmother) told us firmly watching her grandchildren play a few metres away, both her and them a part of multiple generations of Pilakudiyiruppu villagers protesting for the release of their land by the military. Sitting among a group of women gathered under a tree for shade under the hot midday sun, her resolve was shared throughout the protest as villagers made clear that this was a final stand for them to reclaim the land that was rightfully theirs.

Today marks the 14th day since families from Pilakudiyiruppu, Keppapilavu, began their protest demanding their land back from military occupation. On January 31st, 2017, villagers from Pilakudiyiruppu had gone to the site of their occupied lands after being told by the military that they would be receiving their lands back that day. Their high hopes and excitement quickly turned into severe disappointment and anger when the military told them that they still could not release their lands upon their arrival. Frustrated with the continuous lying and evasiveness of both military and government officials, villagers set up camp across from the Air Force Base, vowing not to move until their land was returned.

Keppapilavu is a Grama Niladhari division within the Maritimepattu Divisional Secretariat in the Mullaithivu district, comprising the 4 different villages of Sooripuram, Seeniyamottai, Keppapilavu, and Pilakudiyiruppu. Most villagers in the area were affected quite badly by the war, and within Pilakudiyiruppu alone, out of 84 families approximately 30 are women-headed households, and many families have members with physical disabilities caused by the war.

In 2009, residents of Keppapilavu were forcibly displaced when the military took control of the area and most were sent to the infamous Menik Farm in Vavuniya. After 3 long years and numerous petitions and protests, villagers in Keppapilavu were finally relocated, among the last to close out the Menik Farm camp.

However, the relocation of the residents itself was a highly criticized move, as the government for the first but not the last time falsely promised the villagers that they would be moved back to their own lands. Instead, villagers were relocated to a “Model Resettlement Village” in the area of Sooripuram. In the case of Pilakudiyuruppu, the reason the government gave for being unable to resettle villagers on their own land was that the land had originally been an LTTE airport and so it had simply been turned into a camp for the Sri Lankan Air Force.  However, villagers repeatedly told us that during the war the LTTE had no bases or permanent presence set up in Keppapilavu, and that the nearest LTTE airport was far outside the area. Travelling around Keppapilavu now, one gets the sense that you are almost always in the vicinity of a military camp, with camps stretching for many kilometres at a time.

The Model Resettlement Village, in addition to not being the villagers’ actual lands, was made up of poorly constructed houses, and on land with limited access to groundwater and cultivation possibilities. For communities that survived for generations off of subsistence farming, this was and continues to be a huge livelihood problem.


Model village with roads named after alleged war criminals

“We used to be able to reach the groundwater just with our hands but now we have to dig very deep,” said Yogarasa*, a displaced Tamil man from Pilakudiyiruppu who now lives with his family in the Model Resettlement Village. Yogarasa, his brother, and his father were all subsistence farmers before displacement, but now struggle to make ends meet due to the small plots of land they were given in the Model Village and the difficulty accessing groundwater. “We already suffered so much,” Yogarasa said pointing to his leg injury, “now we just want to live in peace but how am I supposed to feed my four children when this plot is barely enough to feed one?”

Villagers were quick to point us to cracks in the walls of their houses, crumbling doors, leaking roofs, and poorly made window shutters. The government first said that it paid 350,000 SLR to construct the houses in the Model Resettlement Village, but after the protests started, they are now saying that the houses actually cost 550,000 SLR. According to villagers and local officials, these estimates are far from the truth, and that given army labour and shoddy materials, in actuality the houses were likely constructed for far less than even 350,000 SLR.

Model resettlement village house

“This pattern of lying about land releases and poor resettlement efforts is all too familiar to me,” said Kopahan, a member of a delegation of villagers from Sampur who came to Keppapilavu to show their solidarity and provide support based on their experiences. Like Keppapilavu, villagers from Sampur spent years protesting the army’s occupation of their land and repeatedly were lied to by the government about when land would be released and the amount of money that would be available for resettlement once land was released. To date even after this protracted struggle including a court case, villagers from Sampur have only received the land on which their houses were originally built, while the navy still occupies the vast expanse of paddy fields and coastline necessary for their livelihood. Even that land that was finally released was given back in terrible condition with trees razed to the ground, and wells destroyed.

Kopahan warned us and the Keppapilavu villagers to be wary of the “resource grabbing” that in his view is part of the military’s motivation for why it continues to occupy certain areas of land for as long as it has. He noted that like Keppapilavu, Sampur once was a fertile area known for being conducive to agriculture, and that it is those areas of Sampur which the navy continues to occupy and use for farming. The agricultural potential of the land in Pilakudiyiruppu was repeatedly pointed out to us by villagers.

“This fight is not just about us, we are also thinking about the future and legacy we leave our children,” said one villager.

Mrs. S. Chandraleela, the Head of the Keppapilavu Women’s Development Organization, said to us, “[w]e would rather go live on our own lands with nothing than live in the Model Resettlement Village because at least we know that on our lands there is the potential to make something sustainable and make a livelihood.”

Mrs Chandraleela, head of Keppapilavu Women's Development Organization

It is this push for a sustainable and stable life that appears to be driving many of the primarily female protesting villagers of Pilakudiyiruppu to stay firm in their resolve. Despite the military’s harassment of them in the first few days and ongoing surveillance both by the Air Force Base across the road and the CID, all of the villagers we spoke to were determined to stay where they were until they were given their land. Even the children who have joined the protest out of necessity understand what is happening and one boy told us, “[w]e will go to school when we can go from our own land.” (Children are currently being schooled by teachers in the evenings at the site of the protest.)

But despite the strength and perseverance of Pilakudiyiruppu’s villagers, the central government and the elected representatives of the Tamil people, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), still have not responded. Villagers criticized TNA leader and leader of the Official Opposition, Mr. Sampanthan, for still not having visited the protest or even made a call or message to protestors, as of the time of this article. “If the Chief Minister [of the Northern Provincial Council] can make time to visit then why can’t Mr. Sampanthan?” asked one villager. After a flurry of visits by members of the Northern Provincial Council yesterday, today the NPC is meeting to sign a memo prepared by NPC Councillor for Mullaitivu, Mr. Ravikaran, to be handed to the President in support of the Pilakudiyiruppu villagers’ demand.

Villagers are adamant that they will not leave the site of their protest to meet with politicians as demonstrated when they declined an invitation 10 days into their protest to meet with government officials in Colombo. “We aren’t leaving until they come and take us to our lands and our aim is not going to change so what will we gain from negotiations? We’ve seen what has happened to others who have stopped their protest to go and meet the government in Colombo – nothing,” explained Mrs. Chandraleela. Villagers made clear that they expect their representatives in the TNA to negotiate with the central government and get them the solution they are asking for, the release of their lands.

In the seventeenth month since Resolution 30/1 was co-sponsored by the Sri Lankan government at the UN Human Rights Council, and two years after the “National Unity” government first came to power, the situation facing the villagers of Pilakiudiyiruppu is unacceptable and symbolic of the lack of adequate progress in Sri Lanka. But in the space that has opened up under the new regime, the absolute stand that Pilakiudiyiruppu villagers are taking is the beginning of a path forward. The growing culture of resistance through peaceful protest, as with protests over disappeared including most recently with a hunger strike in Vavuniya and protests of military occupation of land and disappearances in Puthukudiyiruppu, should be encouraged and supported. It was heartening to see diverse support for protestors while in Keppapilavu, ranging from women’s groups who came from across the North-East to families who had cooked and brought food paid for by relatives in the diaspora.

Inter-faith women's group attend in solidarity

War-affected Tamil communities across the North-East are demonstrating that they will not be silenced, lied to or forced to fit within a particular victim narrative. Villagers from Pilakudiyiruppu may be protesting for the release of their one village, but in their courage and strength they are showing the Tamil polity in Sri Lanka a way forward in resisting the continued pattern of broken promises by the government and ongoing militarization of the North-East. “We will not move from here until we get our land back,” the people of Pilakudiyiruppu are saying. And it is time the Sri Lankan government listened.

*Some names have been changed to protect the safety of the persons in question.

Dharsha Jegatheeswaran is a Senior Researcher at the Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research and the Human Rights Director of P.E.A.R.L. She is currently based in Jaffna.

Mario Arulthas is the Advocacy Director of PEARL. He is based between Washington, D.C. and Jaffna.

Related Articles: 

06 February 2017 : Let us return: Pilavu villagers' protest continues

Fire Accident At Kilinochchi Market: The Destruction Of The Economical Hub Of The Tamils In Postwar Sri Lanka

By Parani Krisnarajani –February 13, 2017

Parani Krisnarajani

The sight of the smoke that billowed in the sky because of the recent fire mishap destroying the Kilinochchi public market reminded me of the smoke that emanated in the high sky of Mullivaikkal on the fateful day of 18^th May, 2009.

The debacle we faced in Mullivaikkaal symbolizes our defeat, a defeat that was thrust on us by the gory hands of genocide. Kilinochchi public market serves as a token for the micro economical activities of the Tamils, who slowly were salvaging themselves from the ugly tentacles of genocide.

It served to resurrect them slowly from the debacle they faced and probably wage a long but just struggle for their freedom.

The attitude of few to view the fire at Kilinochchi public market as “yet-another-fire mishap” and probably regular news is something sad to hear. We need to travel to the sorrowful days of Mullivaikkaal to understand this better.

The massacre of Mullivaikkaal has created a deep scar in the hearts and minds of Eezham Tamils both individually and as a community. To many, this scar seems more political. But the truth is rather different. It has ramifications that run deep, into the social, cultural, psychological, economical, and livelihood aspects of the Eezham Tamils. How these ramifications have come into play, both individually and as a community, have to be subject to a series of analysis.

Our immediate need is to identify these ramifications and to save ourselves from its ill-effects. Our basic need is to come out of the ill-effects of these ramifications before we strengthen ourselves politically. This is the truth and it is not beyond comprehension.

As I keep maintaining for long, we Tamils were defeated not just militarily and politically. Our homeland, our unique ethnicity, our socio-cultural heritage based on our language, our collective psyche, our economy and our livelihood were all destroyed and destructed.

This is not something ordinary. One of my research analyses says that our generation that has survived this massive onslaught will have to experience the impact of this destruction for a minimum of three more generations. This is the exact reason why we quipped that beyond politics, we may have to pay a heavy price for our mere survival wherever we live in this world.

The destruction of socio-cultural heritage, collective psyche, economy and livelihood of a race evolving from its homeland, its ethnicity and its linguistic affiliations, constitutes the destruction of its polity. So rather than fighting among ourselves as to what our next political move would be, prudence has it that we concentrate rather on resurrecting our socio-cultural heritage, collective psyche, economy and livelihood for restoring our political identity.

It is at this juncture, in the post Mullivaikkaal era, that the basic livelihood aspect and the economy of the Tamils gain an ideological shape.

Politics, Economics and Culture are deeply tied together. A research of mine that takes into account these deep ties has found a disastrous consequence that awaits the Eezham Tamils post Mullivaikkaal massacre. I tagged the economy and cultural aspects with the current world order to arrive at such a conclusion. They truly remind me that bad days are ahead, a catastrophe awaiting us.

Economics is not a solitary philosophy. It is a concept that is multifaceted and diverse. Finance is one such facet inside economics. This single facet truly depicts the challenges that Tamils face in the aftermath of Mullivaaikkaal massacre. A tacit understanding of these implications can point to the importance of the burning of Kilinochchi market.

Read More

Govt. gazettes Enforced Disappearances Bill

By Dharisha Bastians-Tuesday, 14 February 2017

The Government has proposed draft legislation to criminalise disappearances in line with its international obligations, even as the country grapples with the legacy of 65,000 people still missing after two insurgencies and a civil war.

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Bill was gazetted by order of the Prime Minister on 9 February. Cabinet approval was granted to gazette the enforced disappearances bill on 7 February, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera said.

The Enforced Disappearances Bill must be supported by a simple majority of the House to be enacted into law.

The Bill, if enacted, will give effect to the UN International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance that the Government of Sri Lanka ratified in May 2016. Under the convention, the country has an obligation to enact local laws to criminalise enforced disappearance and offer protection to victims of the crime.

According to Section 3 of the Bill, any public officer or person acting with the authority or support of the State, who “arrests, details, wrongfully confines, abducts, kidnaps” and refuses to acknowledge the arrest, detection, confinement or abduction, conceals the fate of such a person or refuses to disclose the person’s whereabouts, will be guilty of the crime of enforced disappearance.

Under the provisions of the Enforced Disappearances Bill, the crime is punishable by a prison term not exceeding 20 years and a fine of Rs. 1 million. Persons convicted of the crime of enforced disappearance will also be liable to pay compensation of no less than Rs. 500,000 to a victim.

The Bill also guarantees that victims and relatives of victims will have the right to know the truth about the circumstances of an enforced disappearance, progress and results of the investigation by law enforcement and the fate of the disappeared person.

Where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance, law enforcement is mandated to investigate even without a formal complaint, the Bill stipulates.

“Law enforcement authorities shall take all appropriate measures to search for and locate the disappeared person, and in the case of a person held in secret detention, procure the release of such person, and in the event of death, to locate, respect and return the remains of such person,” the Bill states.

The Bill also seeks to outlaw secret detention of persons if enacted into law, stipulating that any person “deprived of liberty” will have the right to communicate with and be visited by relatives, a lawyer or any person of his choice.

The Enforced Disappearances Bill also seeks to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to implementing the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution of October 2015 which was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka, ahead of the Council’s 34th Session which begins on 27 February. Operative Paragraph 13 of the Resolution welcomes the Government’s pledge to sign and ratify the International Convention on Enforced Disappearances and criminalise disappearances under Sri Lankan law.

Last year, the Government enacted legislation to set up the Office of Missing Persons to investigate disappearances. However, six months later, the OMP is yet to be established. At the Cabinet meeting last week, the Government approved a proposal to incorporate a final amendment to the OMP Act, proposed by the JVP, which would deprive the Office of some of its powers to enter into agreements in order to achieve its mandate. The move was widely criticised by civil society activists, as an attempt by the Government to dilute the powers of the OMP.

However, while they do not constitute a catch-all clause like the section that may be deleted, several other provisions of the OMP Act would permit agreements between the Office of Missing Persons and other parties where necessary, authoritative sources told Daily FT.

New constitution: president takes over

Feb 13, 2017

President Maithripala Sirisena has taken over the task of introducing a new constitution or effecting essential political reforms, reports say. Until then, the task was in the hands of prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Also, steps were being taken simultaneously to probe war crime and human rights violation accusations, relief for the victims in the north, introducing a reconciliation mechanism etc.

Civil society activists say they were informed by the president at a recent meeting that he has considered criticism of the process and decided that one of the two should receive priority attention now. He intends bringing a constitutional reform and is to launch a round of talks with leaders of political parties. A new constitution will be considered after seeking the public opinion at a referendum.

Accordingly, PM Wickremesinghe is likely to agree for a constitutional amendment that will be possible through the two-third parliamentary majority the government wields. The UNP, SLFP or the JVP has yet to comment on a new constitution or the reports of the six subcommittees on a new constitution.

The president has noted that a local mechanism to probe war crime charges would supply fuel to the Mahinda faction to build a strong opinion against the government, which will cause its defeat at a referendum. That will pave the way for the Rajapaksas to gain power again, and what should be done now was to do what can be achieved, he noted.

However, foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera recently told foreign journalists that the government was ready for a referendum on a new constitution. Minister Lakshman Kiriella told parliament on February 09 that the referendum would be held with the SLFP’s support.

Journalist killed in ‘No Fire Zone’ remembered in Jaffna

13 Feb  2017

A memorial event was held in Jaffna this weekend, to mark the 8th anniversary since the killing of Tamil journalist Puniyamoorthy Sathiyamoorthy.

Mr Sathiyamoorthy was killed by a Sri Lankan artillery barrage inside the ‘No Fire Zone’ in February 2009, alongside thousands of other civilians during the final stages of the armed conflict. A journalist of the Vanni based Media House, he wrote the military column for the 'Eezhanaatham' daily and was reporting from inside the ‘No Fire Zone’ when Sri Lankan artillery shells landed in the area.

“Several Tamil media reports said Sathiyamoorthy did not die immediately,” said the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). “They cited relatives who said a lack of proper medical attention contributed to his death.”

The killing was also condemned by the International Association of Tamil Journalists with the organisation’s President Anandhi Suriyaprakasam saying it “tragically underscores the extreme dangers for all journalists in Sri Lanka who try to report from the war zones or to offer a critical view of the conduct of the war”.

 Also see an obituary from TamilNet here.

Related Articles: 

14 February 2016 : Murdered Tamil journalist remembered in Jaffna

Murdered Tamil journalist remembered in Jaffna

14 Feb  2016

Tamil journalist Puniyamoorthy Sathiyamoorthy, who was killed by a Sri Lankan artillery barrage inside the ‘No Fire Zone’ in February 2009, was remembered in Jaffna this week.

A ceremony held at Jaffna Hindu College saw the Editor-in-Chief of the Jaffna daily ‘Valampuri’ N. Vijayasuntharam speak alongside the director of Jaffna Hospital Dr Sathiyamoorthy.

Puniyamoorthy Sathiyamoorthy, a journalist of Vanni based Media House wrote the military column for the 'Eezhanaatham' daily. He was reporting from inside the ‘No Fire Zone’ when Sri Lankan artillery shells landed in the area.

“Several Tamil media reports said Sathiyamoorthy did not die immediately,” said the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). “They cited relatives who said a lack of proper medical attention contributed to his death.”

The CPJ also said “Colleagues outside of the conflict area, not all of them Tamils, said Sathiyamoorthy’s reports and commentaries were measured, and that he strove to maintain journalistic standards and an accurate representation of the wartime situations in which he found himself”.

“His work had global impact, reaching large numbers of Tamils living overseas,” it added.

Also see an obituary by TamilNet here.

The danger of policy paralysis

Sri Lanka should not let it being taken as bait in a larger geopolitical scheming



2017-02-14

There was this rather intriguing article in Forbes, which read as: 
 “After claiming South China Sea to be its own sea, telling America to stay off its islands, China is reaching for the Indian Ocean, telling India to stay off its own colony, Sri Lanka.”

  My first impression was that it was something that had been lifted from a pamphlet of Rudrakumar’s Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam. 

 Usually it is those types who strive to pick the most demeaning of words to call us out. But, this time it happened to be not the case. Anyway, sometimes using wrong loaded words in the wrong context is no less stupid than undressing in public to impress bystanders.

 India-China competition for power in its extended neighbourhood is as old as the birth of the two new states, India in 1947 and Communist China in 1949. 

John Garver, an academic, called it ‘an enduring rivalry… rooted in the decades-long, multi-layered and frequently sharp conflict.’

 It remains so, and will even become acute as two the countries acquire additional power - until one day, if ever, convergence of internal characteristics of two countries will moderate rivalry. Unlike realists (Who think all states are alike except in differential capability) many liberal theorists believe liberal states are less inclined to balance a fellow Liberal State. 

 That prospect is however a long shot given the contrasting internal systems of two States, though one would say another factor, economic interdependency may have a moderating effect. 

Why we hear too much of this India- China competition these days is for two reasons; one is of course the most obvious; as two rising powers accrue incremental power, they expand their influence in their neighbourhoods and beyond. 

 That has been the case throughout the history of international politics and it will be the same in the future- though mode of the expansion has changed, from gun boats and territorial conquest in the past to something more akin to influence-peddling at present. 

The other reason is also important. When a rising power expands its influence, other regional states tend to gang up to balance it. 

 However, strangely for a great power contender, but not so strangely for India, of which dominant Nehruvian ideology loathes power politics, India has been wary of being part of an external balancing strategy against China. The United States is looking to increase its presence in the region through the Pivot to Asia Pacific and has actively lobbied for an Indian role in it.  

However, when Leon Pennetta, former Defence Secretary described India as the ‘Lynchpin’ of the Pivot, A.K. Antony, India’s Defence Minister under the Manmohan Singh administration reportedly told him that India has no desire to be a part of America’s pivot. 

 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called the Pivot as a ‘development fraught with uncertainty.’ 

 For the entirety of two terms of the Congress Government, New Delhi did not sign three basic foundation agreements, which had been on the table since 2002, that the US enter into with any prospective defence partner.  

Though those were well short of any kind of military alliance and that both India and the US have entered into similar agreements with several dozen countries, India cited its abiding concerns of its strategic autonomy as a reason not to sign the agreements. (For instance, long before India signed a Logistical Sharing agreement with the US last year, Sri Lanka had two both with India and America)
 That reluctance and vacillation towards a strategic partnership somewhat declined under the BJP administration of which world view is shaped by Hindutva realism, which may encourage it to exploit systemic opportunities proactively, without being tied to ideological rhetoric of Nehruvianism. 

 However, even then, India was not a fully convinced supporter, though Mr. Modi told the American Congress, that the two countries had overcome ‘the hesitations of history’. 

 Even recently after a Pentagon spokesman told media that India and America had agreed to conduct joint naval patrols, New Delhi swiftly said, it has no plans to do so.

 However, now with Mr. Trump in office, that relationship, like many others is in a flux. With Mr. Trump’s America First policy, no State, even America’s major allies in the EU wants to be taken for
  a sucker. 

 Indian hesitations could well grow. In order to entrap India even in the minimalist alignment that had been secured under the Obama administration, a degree of scaremongering would be useful. States tend to shed their ideological and domestic trappings, when their external vulnerability shoots up.

 Small states like ours have no power to influence those systemic patterns in the international system, but a smart government should know how to exploit opportunities and avoid dangers. At minimum, we should not let us being taken as bait in a larger geopolitical scheming.

 Overly Chinese presence in Sri Lanka would have long term consequences for India. Sri Lanka should try to offset it with enlisting more states, and most importantly India. Why the Chinese economic presence in this country is depicted as a bogeyman in some quarters is mainly due to India’s absence. 

 There are two obvious factors that contribute to limits of Indian economic presence: A State’s external behaviour is first and foremost predicated by its relative power.  

India’s economy is only a fifth of China’s USD 10 trillion economy, which should explain the different level of capabilities. 

 Second is the State power, in this case the Government’s ability to extract and utilise national resources to its foreign policy goals. 

 India’s Government has limited sway over its multinationals, some of which are among the largest investors in the EU, but do very few investments in India’s neighbourhood. That may also explain why South Asia is one of the least economically integrated regions. Whereas China’s State firms march to the orders of the party State, of which investments betray Beijing’s long term ambitions.

  We have so few real Indian businesses investing in this country whereas the Chinese have pledged some of the most transformative investment projects, two of which obviously are the Colombo Port City and the Hambantota Export Processing Zone.

 The sad truth is after over three decades of economic liberalisation, we have not managed to secure a windfall from the world class IT industry, services, or automobile industry that flourish across the Palk Strait. 

 Why this happened is due to our insulation from global supply chains, which has over the time made us less competitive, while we continue to hallucinate that we have the best doctors, best IT graduates, best that thing and this thing.

 We will have to fix that problem and to do that to bring down protectionist barriers and overly paternalistic labour and land laws, which in reality entrench poverty and under achievement.  But as we have seen recently, the Government has very little autonomy from social pressure to implement practical measures, be it signing of ETCA, negotiating of free trade agreements or land acquisition to reach those ends. 

 The danger of this policy paralysis is not just economic stagnation. If the asymmetry between Indian and Chinese perceived influence and presence in Sri Lanka widens further, at one point, Indians would view this as a zero- sum- game. Then repercussions would not be nice. 

 We have seen how it unfolded in the 80s. We should not let anything remotely similar to happen. Follow RangaJayasuriya @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter.