Sunday, February 19, 2017

Big Powers Clip U.N. Secretary-General’s Wings

In early challenge to Antonio Guterres’ independence, the United States and other veto-wielding powers insist on filling U.N. jobs with their own picks.

BY COLUM LYNCH-FEBRUARY 15, 2017

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres may be the world’s most visible diplomat. But he is quickly learning that he is far from the most powerful.

The former Portuguese prime minister is facing stiff resistance from the United States and other key U.N. powers to filling his top cabinet posts with diplomats of his own choosing, raising early concerns about how much independence he will be able to exercise.

In his first weeks on the job, Guterres sought to shake up the great-power monopoly on top U.N. posts, and cast a wider recruiting net, hiring a Nigerian politician as his deputy and a Brazilian diplomat as his chief of staff.

But his attempts to install aspirants outside the exclusive club of the five veto-wielding U.N. powers — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — to lead the U.N.’s sprawling peacekeeping, political, and humanitarian relief operations have largely run aground. That has dashed the hopes of smaller member countries and outside groups seeking a break from his predecessor, Ban Ki-moon, who was criticized for being too beholden to the five permanent members of the Security Council.

The U.N. announced Tuesday that a French diplomat, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, will head up the U.N. peacekeeping department for one year, extending a 20-year lock on the job. Meanwhile, Britain and China remain favorites to retain control over the departments responsible for coordinating U.N. emergency relief operations and economic and social affairs, respectively. And the United States will keep the top political job, which it has held for the past decade, after Guterres tried and failed to persuade Obama administration officials to allow a national outside the big five powers to take on the role. Guterres has asked Jeffrey Feltman, a retired career foreign service officer who was recommended for the job by the Obama administration, to remain as under-secretary-general in the department of political affairs until April 2018.

The U.N. head made it clear to American officials during the final months of the Obama administration that he would have liked to have had “some flexibility to rearrange the deck chairs” in his cabinet, a former U.S. official familiar with the discussions told Foreign Policy. “We were not willing to show him goodwill on this issue. I expect that was disappointing to him,” the official said.

The French and British “dug in,” insisting that they hold on to the top jobs at heading the U.N. peacekeeping and emergency relief efforts, according to the official.

Any hope the Trump administration would show more flexibility on the jobs front were quickly dashed when Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, publicly blocked Guterres’s appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad as the head of the U.N. mission in Libya.

The scuttling of Fayyad’s appointment has driven home the fact that Guterres faces “serious political constraints” in calling his own shots, said Richard Gowan, a U.N. expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. But Gowan said Guterres may have an ace in his hand.

Guterres placed a time limit on Tuesday’s appointments, committing only to keeping French and American leadership of the peacekeeping and political departments for a year. In the meantime, his office will carry out plans for a reorganization of the U.N. bureaucracy that could eliminate some of these posts or merge them.

“If Guterres is smart, he can use the reorganization to strengthen his own position” by reducing the power of the department heads beneath him, Gowan argued.

Guterres is now grappling with simmering resentment from the rest of the U.N.’s 193 member states, who sought assurances during his campaign that he would end the big-power monopoly that they believe runs contrary of the spirit of the U.N. charter and a succession of resolutions by the U.N. General Assembly that explicitly call for an end to the practice.

A group of 25 countries recently called on Guterres to open the top jobs up for competition among nationals from the U.N.’s 193 member states. The push comes after a successful global campaign last year by governments and good-governance groups to open the race for the U.N.’s top job. Those groups are now frustrated that the selection of senior appointees is largely playing out in secret.

Breaking the big powers’ hold on the senior jobs “is the only way he can truly ensure the independence of the U.N.’s policies or advice,” argued Carne Ross, the founder of Independent Diplomat, a New York-based nongovernmental organization that provides diplomatic advisory services.

The appointment process has long fueled suspicions that U.N. secretaries-general have traded top jobs to big powers in exchange for supporting their candidacies. That perception can do “serious damage” to the U.N. ability to serve as an honest brokers, said Bob Orr, a former top official in Kofi Annan’s and Ban Ki-moon’s administrations.

The U.N. charter prohibits its civil servants from acting on behalf of any government, and each new employee is required to swear an oath of loyalty to the United Nations. In practice, top U.N. political appointees — who generally owe their job to their governments — often had divided loyalties.

A high-ranking official during the Bush administration, Christopher Burnham, used to wear an American flag pin on his lapel. His first loyalty, he once said, was to the U.S. taxpayer.

Some say it is only sensible to recruit nationals from the big powers to help ensure they have a stake in the success of the U.N. The placement of senior officials with close personal relations with the world’s leading powers can reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings. And both Feltman and Lacroix are widely viewed as capable diplomats.

“It’s like the LBJ line” about the controversial FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, said Simon Adams, the executive director of a human rights advocacy group, the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. “Better to have them inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.”

Photo credit: FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

A special warfare unit was spotted flying a Trump flag in public. Now the Navy is investigating.

(Courtesy of Indivisible Kentucky)

By Peter Holley February 3

Steve Thompson was on his way to pick up some feed for his goat farm Sunday morning when he noticed an impressive-looking military convoy and started filming. When he neared the lead vehicle in the convoy, the 32-year-old Shepherdsville, Ky., man noticed something else: A large blue and white Trump campaign flag.

“I just thought it was just a bunch of military vehicles,” Thompson, who was driving near Louisville at the time, told the Lexington Herald Leader. “I was surprised because I figured you wouldn’t be able to fly anything on a Humvee other than an American flag.”

The Navy has since confirmed that the convoy was from a Virginia Beach-based special warfare unit.

Thompson’s video is one of two that have been circulating on social media this week, drawing both praise and outrage, and prompting the Navy to open an investigation into the flag-flying display. One of the Facebook videos showing the convoy was viewed close to 80,000 times before it was taken down Thursday afternoon — but not before unleashing a flood of comments.

Social video from Kentucky of an "unauthorized" flag-flying display by a military convoy prompted the Navy to open an investigation. (Indivisible Kentucky)

For some, military personnel publicly endorsing a political candidate exacerbates existing fears about American institutions falling prey to an administration that has been accused of having authoritarian impulses. For others, the flag was little more than a patriotic celebration highlighting the peaceful transfer of power.

The Navy has an opinion as well: The display was “unauthorized.”

Navy Capt. Jason Salata, a spokesman for Naval Special Warfare Command, said Thursday that his headquarters is aware of the photographs and has launched an inquiry.

The action could run afoul of a Defense Department directive that bans service members from acting in political manners while on active duty. Among the specific actions banned are displaying political signs or banners on a private vehicle and displaying a “partisan political sign, poster, banner or similar device” outside a residence on a military base.

Reached by email, Lt. Jacqui Maxwell, a spokeswoman for Naval Special Warfare Group Two, released a statement confirming that the vehicles captured on video and cameras were based in Fort Knox, Ky., and were driven by members of an East Coast Naval Special Warfare unit. At the time, she noted, the convoy was traveling between two military training areas.

“Department of Defense and Navy regulations prescribe flags and pennants that may be displayed as well as the manner of display,” the statement said. “The flag shown in the video was unauthorized. A command inquiry into this matter has been initiated.”

“Naval Special Warfare strives to maintain the highest level of readiness, effectiveness, discipline, efficiency, integrity, and public confidence,” the statement continued. “To this end, Naval Special Warfare leaders are committed to thoroughly and impartially investigating all non-frivolous allegations of misconduct. Where misconduct is present, the Naval Special Warfare commander responsible for ensuring good order and discipline within his unit will make a disposition decision as to the appropriate administrative and/or disciplinary action, if any.”

The videos were widely circulated by Indivisible Kentucky, a newly formed political organization that is opposed to the Trump agenda. The Louisville-based organization was among the first to post the footage online.

“This is a fascist tactic,” a statement on the group’s website said. “This is not acceptable. RESIST!!!”

Chris Rowzee, a 28-year Air Force veteran who serves as the group’s spokeswoman, said the display should be disturbing to members of the military and the public and raises “all kinds of red flags.”

Members of the military take an oath to the Constitution, not political figures, she said.

“The military is absolutely prohibited from demonstrating any sort of partisan political activity or support towards a party, political campaign or a candidate,” Rowzee said. “The bottom line is the public has to trust that the military is non-political and that it’s not going to back someone who might try to become some sort of a dictator.”

“Our military has a long history of that sort of security with the public and this sort of activity undermines that trust,” she added.

U.S. Rep. Scott Taylor, a Trump-supporting Republican and former Navy SEAL from Virginia Beach, told the Virginian Pilot that the decision to fly the flag was clearly inappropriate and was quickly corrected by the individual’s senior officer.

“Obviously, it’s inappropriate,” Taylor told the paper. “It’s very clear that you should not be doing that, that they shouldn’t be involved in politics, overtly in their military capacity.”

It’s common for military convoys of the likes captured on camera in Kentucky to display boutique flags on deployment, though it’s rare for it to happen in the United States. Gadsden and pirate flags are common, as are flags with the logos of various sports teams.

Dan Lamothe and Thomas Gibbons-Neff contributed to this report.

Worshippers defy Thai police at Buddhist temple

By Cod Satrusayang | BANGKOK

Thousands of followers of Thailand's biggest Buddhist temple Buddhist temple defied orders to leave its grounds on Sunday to enable police to seek out their former abbot, who is accused of money laundering.

Police ordered worshippers to leave Dhammakaya temple by 3 p.m. (0800 GMT) so that they could intensify the search for former abbot Phra Dhammachayo.

But his followers, who want the authorities to suspend their siege, flocked into the 1,000 acre compound. Many held rudimentary placards in English and Thai calling for police to stand down and appealing for international attention and help.

Thailand's ruling junta used a special emergency law on Thursday to let police explore the Dhammakaya Temple after months of failing to get it to hand over Phra Dhammachayo.

"We have cooperated with the government every step of the way but this is one step too far," temple spokesman and senior monk Phra Pasura Dantamano told Reuters.

"We're asking authorities to suspend the emergency law and lift their siege. Our supplies are low and we have been without power or water for three days."

Thailand's Department of Special Investigations ordered all non-residents to leave the premises because temple activities were hindering police in their search. Monks who live in the temple were told to gather separately.

The department also ordered 14 temple elders to give themselves up to police or face arrest.

The temple is unusual in defying the military government. Opposition from political parties and activists has largely been silenced since a coup in 2014.

Phra Dhammachayo faces charges of conspiracy to launder money and receive stolen goods, as well as taking over land unlawfully to build meditation centres. His aides dismiss the accusations as politically motivated.

Although the temple has no overt political affiliation, the abbot is widely believed to have had links with populist former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was overthrown in 2006. A government led by Thaksin's sister was toppled by the army in 2014.

The Dhammakaya Temple's brasher approach to winning adherents jars on conservatives, who say it exploits its followers and uses religion to make money. The temple says it is as committed to Buddhist values as anyone else.

(Editing by Matthew Tostevin/Ruth Pitchford)

U.S. Scientists Urge ‘Serious Consideration’ Of Gene Editing In Human Embryos

However, human genome editing is still illegal in the U.S.

SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY - ZEPHYR VIA GETTY IMAGES

Julie Steenhuysen-02/15/2017

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Powerful gene editing tools may one day be used on human embryos, eggs and sperm to remove genes that cause inherited diseases, according to a report by U.S. scientists and ethicists released on Tuesday.

The report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Medicine said scientific advances make gene editing in human reproductive cells “a realistic possibility that deserves serious consideration.”

The statement signals a softening in approach over the use of the technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 that has opened up new frontiers in genetic medicine because of its ability to modify genes quickly and efficiently.

In December 2015, scientists and ethicists at an international meeting held at the NAS in Washington said it would be “irresponsible” to use gene editing technology in human embryos for therapeutic purposes, such as to correct genetic diseases, until safety and efficacy issues are resolved.

Though the technology is still not ready, the latest NAS report says clinical trials for genome editing of the human germline could be permitted, “but only for serious conditions under stringent oversight.”

Such editing is not legal in the United States, and other countries have signed a convention prohibiting the practice on concerns it could be used to create so-called designer babies.

CRISPR-Cas9 works as a type of molecular scissors that can selectively trim away unwanted parts of the genome, and replace it with new stretches of DNA.

Genome editing is already being planned for use in clinical trials of people to correct diseases caused by a single gene mutation, such as sickle cell disease. But these therapies affect only the patient.

The concern is over use of the technology in human reproductive cells or early embryos because the changes would be passed along to offspring.

Research using the powerful technique is plowing ahead even as researchers from the University of California and the Broad Institute battle for control over the CRISPR patent.

Although gene editing of human reproductive cells to correct inherited diseases “must be approached with caution, caution does not mean prohibition,” the committee said in a statement.

Sarah Norcross of the Progress Educational Trust, which advocates for people affected bygenetic conditions, called the recommendations “sensible and prudent.”

But Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society said they were “unsettling and disappointing,” arguing that they “constitute a green light for proceeding with efforts to modify the human germline” - changes that can be passed to future generations.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Sri Lanka: An Appeal to Tamil Political Leaders on the ‘New Constitution’

The federal/unitary debates are becoming old fashioned. However, it might be little premature to characterize ‘Sri Lanka purely as a devolutionary state.’ It could also be misleading. The retention of the term ‘unitary’ could be considered a formality and for the sake of continuity. Devolution of power naturally originates within unitary states, although not unknown to federalism.

From Laksiri Fernando-Feb 18, 2017

( February 18, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) I make this appeal to all Tamil political leaders without limiting to the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) or its affiliates. This includes not only the leaders in the North and the East, but also the rest of the country, although many of my submissions may directly relevant to the first category. I make this appeal as a citizen of Sri Lanka based on my experience, concerns and respect for the country and its future.

Sri Lanka An Appeal to Tamil Political Leaders on the ‘New Constitution’.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

First trounce the Joint Opposition

We must not put cart before horse on constitutional referendum

True to their words the Joint Opposition attracted a sea of heads to their Nugegoda rally.

by Kumar David-February 18, 2017, 6:12 pm

Many experts say that if amendments to the constitution live up to what is really needed, they have to be substantial and hence need to be approved at a referendum. If an entirely new constitution is to be enacted it will of course require a referendum. There are different views on whether a referendum can be won; most naysayers are Ministers from the Sirisena-wing of the SLFP; conversely, political radicals seem confident of victory. The point everybody is blind to, however, is that the Joint Opposition (JO) and hate-mongering chauvinists have to be confronted and defeated BEFORE the referendum. This hate-mob has to be shattered now before it goes on the rampage. Once the JO is politically broken the referendum will be plain sailing. On the other if chauvinist "terrorism" runs riot and law and order is undermined it may not even be possible to conduct a referendum. We already see, on every side incitement, disruptions and street actions, some genuine and justified, others JO instigated attempts at sabotage.

Where are Messrs Sirisena and Ranill? This the moment when they must rise to the challenge, come into the open guns blazing so to speak, and mobilise to defeat the JO, even on the streets if need be. Instead, one of them is tied up in knots within his own party’s convolutions, unable to decide about the Executive Presidency, devolution, the structure of state and other fundamentals. The other seems to be hiding under his bed. The crisis now facing constitutional change is a crisis of leadership, or rather the absence of leadership. The void encourages internal forces to pull in many directions. Sirisena has not stamped his imprimatur or made a bold declaration of principles; Ranil is missing in action.

Contrast this with 1972 and 1978 – whether you like or dislike those constitutions is beside the point. Would any ‘onside’ MP or party stalwart have dared to sabotage the Sirima-Colvin or the JR leadership? Firm leadership (and a massive parliamentary majority to boot) ensured that no internal force dared to undermine the process. Today the main battle is not what to write in the constitution but how to get the damned thing passed at all! Ok, the contents are crucial of course; I am making an overstatement to drive home my point that this duumvirate leadership has gone to sleep. The second eleven, not the front line batsman, face the JO’s strike bowlers, its rag-tag chauvinists and its desiccated wattaka.

What are S&R so frightened of? The JO is a bloated corpse, it is weak and it can be punched and deflated if the other side had guts and strategy. I will give you irrefutable proof how depleted the JO is. I refer to the turnout at the 27 January JO Nugegoda rally where we were promised a sea of 100,000 people. How many turned up? Less than ten thousand! There are many such reports and I did my own semi-scientific checking.

The Island and the Daily Mirror of 28 January carried the same full-frontal picture of the main part of the crowd. I divided the whole picture into one-inch squares, counted the number in each and added. The total is 1860! Impossible it’s too small so jack it up and say there are 3000 in the picture. This is the main part, the full-frontal, so there must have been large numbers on the two sides (very few in the blind-sided back). Even if I make the absurd concession that the number on each the sides was the same as on the full-frontal, the total falls short of 10,000.

The point is not the size of the crowd but my assertion that the JO is weak and cannot mobilise; it can be drawn out and routed. And this must be done now before it expands its network of disruption and mayhem. If S&R are too timid to accept leadership there are others in the wings ready to step in. Civil society movements for one - I was at a seminar on 7 Feb which asserted it would pickup the baton if the leaders were in a funk. Maybe the JVP and the JHU too have ideas.

An economic programme

Citizen Banda or Jane Nona may justifiably demur: "I cannot feed my family on constitutions, nor will fundamental rights pay for children’s schooling and clothing". True, if you fight constitutional battles in isolation, ignoring the far material problems of ordinary folk, it will be too abstract. The Sinhalese especially will be unenergetic about Tamil rights or devolution. Therefore economic issues have to be linked into the mobilisation.

But how can they be related to constitutional matters, you will rightly ask. The answer is at three levels. First the constitution has to be restructured by inserting a missing chapter – directive principles of state policy instructing the state to intervene in the national economy. China under Deng did not need this provision because the Communist Party is supreme, Lee Kwan Yew did not need it either as unquestioned authority gave him the ability to direct and manage the economy. But Lanka needs an enabling constitutional framework that will impose duties on the government.

The second level is that by widening the battle to add economic concerns that enthuse people the fight against reaction, disruption and the JO can be expanded. Plans to open new industries, expand economic activity or enter into partnership agreements with other countries (China and India) are blocked, sabotaged and disrupted by the JO and its political goons. These forces must be defeated in lockstep with the battle for a new or amended constitution. Maybe in the final analysis it will be more an economic battle against reactionary classes than a constitutional battle – that’s fine. If you defeat the JO first you will get a better constitution and greater economic rationality.

Remember the ‘Single Issue Common Candidate’ mobilisation? We did not get everything we wanted; the executive presidency was downgraded, not abolished. But what victories we have scored; removed Rajapaksa, safeguarded democracy and now we have a chance to pursue a constitutional option which may overcome the worst transgressions on the national question. If like then, we get a fairly decent even if not perfect constitution by broadening mobilisation, it would be a big step forward. But to repeat, be warned, unless the JO and its goons are FIRST defeated, we will have no constitutional options at all!

Devolution as a broader concept

The third level is to link economics to devolution. So far devolution has been discussed only in the context of giving Tamil people space to breathe and manage their own affairs. This has been a high pressure issue hence the use of devolution for economic restructuring has been forgotten. I will use my two closing paragraphs to address this lacuna.

The Development (Special Provisions) Bill gazetted on 25 November 2016 can be used as a starting point to kick. I assessed the Bill on 8 January and suggested improvements, but overall I welcomed the effort to link economic planning to devolution. It is not feasible to recapitulate all that here. (The Bill now seems to be stuck in the system and not come before parliament; maybe the privileged classes and their liberal ‘theoreticians’ have stymied it). The Bill’s subtitle, abbreviated, reads: "Facilitate National Policy . . . including Accelerated Economic Development". The gist is regrouping districts into five Regions, establishing five regional authorities called Regional Development Boards, supplement by a centralised Policy Development Office and an Agency for Development and thereby establishing a national planning mechanism with a decentralised component. The alarming thing about the current constitutional discourse is that it lacks any initiatives like this. Specific mechanisms is a matter for legislation but the constitution must mandate and point in this direction?

I will end as I started; nothing can be achieved on the constitution, economy, law and order, devolution or pacifying the Tamils until and unless the JO, its chauvinists and its goons are subdued. People say Sirisena can mobilise thousands in the NCP, they say despite criticism of their appointment that Ravi and Ranjan could mobilise mass forces, I know that Sudharsa, Britto, Philip and their movement can mobilise some people from Negombo, and the small left sects can each offer a mini-bus full (say 13 each, so 20 sects equals 260 bodies). The forces to face the JO are there, but no organising leadership.

Sri Lanka’s constitution making process is in the doldrums

The real difficulty is posed by the fact that the main political forces in Sri Lanka are deeply divided over the basic features of any new constitution. | Express Photo Service

By P.K.Balachandran - 16th February 2017

COLOMBO: The process of drafting a brand new constitution for Sri Lanka is in the doldrums though many steps had already been completed and the process was in the final stages early last month itself.

The six subcommittees on various subjects had submitted their reports based on the widest possible public consultations. The Steering Committee had considered these reports and drafted its own report which was to be presented to the Constitutional Assembly (comprising the current members of parliament).

But the Steering Committee’s report was not presented to the Constitutional Assembly on January 9 as planned.

This was because some of the Steering Committee members had raised objections regarding the contents of the report. It was then decided to redraft the report. That process is still on, though late last month, President Maithripala Sirisena tried to break the deadlock by meeting the main political groups in the country.

Informed sources told Express that Sirisena had asked the Steering Committee to draft a simplified report that members of the Constitutional Assembly could understand.

The real difficulty is posed by the fact that the main political forces in Sri Lanka are deeply divided over the basic features of any new constitution.

While the minority Tamil parties want a “federal” form of government with an extensive devolution of powers, the parties of the majority Sinhalese would have none of it. They want the present “unitary” structure to continue. While the Tamil parties want the merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces to form a single Tamil-speaking province, the Sinhalese and the Muslims reject it. While the minority Tamils and Muslims want Sri Lanka to give equal status to all religions, the majority Sinhalese want Buddhism to be recognized as the “foremost” religion.

While the Sirisena and Rajapaksa factions of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), want the retention of the Presidential form of government with minor alterations, the United National Party (UNP) led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe want a Westminster-style parliamentary form of government.

While the UNP wants a brand new constitution, fundamentally different from the existing one, the SLFP (both the factions) want only a few amendments to the existing one. While the UNP feels that the constitution should go through a Referendum, the SLFP feels that the changes should not be so fundamental that a referendum has to be conducted.

It is not clear as to what the Steering Committee has recommended because its report is for the MPs’ eyes only, but it is likely to be too liberal for the major Sinhalese community.

Though the sub-committees had not made any specific recommendations, they had stated the views of all sections. The general tone had been by and large liberal. For instance, they had said that the provinces should be given the right to tap foreign funds and that Law and Order (police powers) should be handed over to the provinces. These suggestions are unlikely to go down well with the majority Sinhalese community which is still apprehensive about the resurgence of Tamil separatism.

While wanting an altogether new constitution, the UNP is not in a hurry to bring it about given the complexity of the political situation. As Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera said: “We believe in following the dictum Festina Lente (making haste slowly).”

The UNP is also wary about the outcome of a referendum and therefore wants to be cautious, Samaraweera, added.

The Killing Of Escaping Detainees!

By Rajan Hoole –February 18, 2017

Dr. Rajan Hoole

State & Media Repression Against Tamil Political Activists – Part IO

As for the thinking concerning Tamil detainees that was surfacing in the highest circles at this time, the killing of at least 20 detainees in Vavuniya on 2nd December 1984 provides a vivid illustration. This was the time the newly formed Media Committee under Dr. Wickrema Weerasooria, an Australian national and brother-in-law of Gamini Dissanayake, was having its trial run. At a press conference held at the defence ministry (Island 4.12.84) he announced that 32 terrorists were killed in two operations. 12 were killed in army operations around Kent and Dollar Farms. (Surely the twelve were not Tigers – who conducted a massacre there 3 days earlier and would not have around when the security forces arrived!) In the second incident according to Dr. Weerasooria, 20 terrorists were killed (the BBC said 30) and 2 wounded when terrorists attempted to attack the Northern Command HQ at Vavuniya. The terrorists killed were said by Dr. Weerasooria to be those under detention at the camp who attempted to escape during the attack.

The purpose of the attack, he said, was to rescue the terrorists detained at the Centre. The terrorists from outside who launched the attack fled upon the soldiers opening fire. None of them, he said, was killed in the attack. One soldier guarding the Command Centre also died in the battle, he added.

The report above speaks for itself. Doctor Weerasooria, it is said, was removed from his media role not long afterwards. About 3 weeks earlier Lalith Athulathmudali was in Vavuniya as National Security Minister for the opening of the new JOSSOP (Joint Special Services Operations) building. He was shown talking to captured ‘terrorists’ who were said to be pouring out their heart to him in the manner of repentant sinners.

Another report from a survivor said that several of those killed belonged to the PLOTE. There was an escape plan, it is said, which was leaked and several of the prisoners were killed. Some were badly beaten. There was no attack from outside. This report came from a survivor whose legs were broken. The incident is again a reflection of the press item cited from the Island of 12th June 1983, and suggests that such ways of dealing with the more spirited prisoners had become part of the mental make-up of the system. What began with Tamils in 1983 became a flood when dealing with Sinhalese youth from 1988.

Image: Suresh Premachandran.

17/02/2017

EPRLF leader and former Parliamentarian Suresh Premachandra hs said that that all members parties in the TNA do not support the government’s proposals to obtain more time to address accountability issues because the proposal is aimed at protecting the government.

He was addressing a press conference in Jaffna on 16th February.

Premachandra said TNA leader R. Sampanthan and TNA parliamentarian A Sumanthiran have spoken in support of this proposal.

“The EPRLF, TELO and PLOTE are against giving more time to the government to address these issues,” he has said.

Edited version of news item appeared in Daily News.

Don’t give time to Govt. for probe – Wiggie

Northern Province Chief Minister CV Wigneswaran has urged the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) not to heed to the government’s request for more time to probe war crimes allegations.

Wigneswaran made the request when he met EU ambassador Tung-Lai Margue together with the UN Resident Coordinator Una McCauley on February 15 in Jaffna.

The Chief Minister had reportedly said that the investigations process would slow down, adding that there was also a possibility of the issue being swept under the carpet if more time was given.

He had also raised several concerns including the continuous presence of the military in the province.

Nation

Office of the Missing Persons to come under the purview of the Prime Minister?

Feb 18, 2017

It is reported that a request has been made by the President Maithripala Sirisena that at least for a few months the activities of the Office of the Missing Persons Office should be brought under the purview of the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe. Although it is reported that the Office of the Missing Persons Office is to be established had been approved in Parliament it has not been gazetted yet by the President as to under whose purview this office would function.

It is reported that in order to break the silence the authorities of the OMP had failed to justify those victimized by not holding post inquiries to numerous complaints made by the relatives of victims.This would relate to the human rights summit to be held in Geneva in March this year along with GSP+ and other European proposals to be taken up.

The Chief Minister of Northern Province CV Vigneswaran had made a complaint to the Ambassador of the European Union Man Martthew who had toured Jaffna on this issue which was promised to the International community by the Sri Lanka government.

The Act No 16 of 2016 on the establishment of the Missing Persons Office was passed in Parliament on the 11th August 2016.This office had been established as the only office to inquire and investigate into those who had been disappeared. This office is run by seven members who have been appointed by the President according to the instructions of constitutional council of the government.These members should be competent on many fields like human rights,International human law. human conflicts and specialists on many other human issues who should be independent personnel.Each member should be given a official period of three years which could be extended by another similar period.The office should be housed in Colombo and if needed could establish regional branches.It is the view of the victimized that for their convenience branches should be established regionally to have east access.

In terms of the sub section 12 (a) of the Act information on missing persons could be given by relatives or any other person to the office of the OMP.The section 27 the displaced or missing persons has been described as a wide interpretation. For these persons who were abducted forcibly,those in North and East during the tenure of the civil war and those disappeared for political and social reasons during political instability periods are included.

The political economy of drought

by Rajan Philips-February 18, 2017, 7:29 pm

The drought crisis in Sri Lanka is not on the same scale as the dreaded drought and famine that plagued African countries in the 1970s or the Bengal famine much earlier. Yet, the present drought is the country’s worst in 40 years and is bad enough to attract the attention of the World Food Programme (WFP), a UN initiative to identify and address food security problems worldwide. The two sides of the globalization coin cannot be more ironical. There is the fancied face of global prosperity and there is the fretting fear of food insecurity for whole communities, if not countries. Global food crisis is now a topic even at Davos, the annual gathering for sustaining conspicuous consumption. Our Prime Minister and the WFP Executive Director apparently mused about Sri Lanka’s drought when the two met at wintry Davos. The Director, Ertharin Cousin, later visited Sri Lanka to check the progress on WFP initiatives in Sri Lanka. All of this is good, and we cannot be choosy no matter where help comes from.