With EU and U.S. Distracted, Central and Eastern European Countries Crack Down on Civil Society

BY EMILY TAMKIN-MARCH 9, 2017 - 12:15 PM

Across Central and Eastern Europe — in Macedonia, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Serbia, and Hungary — governments and political forces are cracking down on nonprofit organizations, and particularly against those groups and movements seen as tied to Hungarian billionaire George Soros.
Many of these places have long struggled with civil society and free discourse. And the high-profile, vocal Soros has long been viewed in Hungary not just as a political opponent, but, per Marta Pardavi of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, “as an enemy.”

But now there are efforts afoot to pass laws aimed at undermining NGOs, particularly ones with foreign ties.

In Hungary, the government threatened to produce a piece of legislation this week that would require “foreign-funded NGOs” to register what funding they receive from foreign sources. Since Hungarian NGOs already report on their funding, and since government officials have said NGOs lack “democratic legitimacy,” the legislation was widely seen in the NGO community as a way to crack down on civil society.

The legislation has been tabled, for now. While the government is holding its cards close to the vest, many expect them to hold a “national consultation” — a referendum on the matter, like the kind they held last fall to close the borders to refugees (it passed, but was invalid due to low voter turnout).

To a certain extent, this, too, could perhaps be seen as a natural continuation of previous measures. “It’s kind of been brewing for a time,” said Richard Youngs of Carnegie Europe told Foreign Policy. Goran Buldioski, director of Soros’s Open Society Initiative for Europe, agreed, and said the attack on civil society — and organizations funded in part by Soros — is “not unprecedented.”

But Youngs also noted that previous measures have been more intermittent and informal. “Several countries in the region, they’ve been using let’s say surreptitious measures, particularly with anything to do with Soros people … Now basically it’s a question of formalizing or making it more explicit,” he said.
This raises the question: why now? The answer may be found not in Central or Eastern Europe, but in Brussels and Washington.

Perhaps the perpetual anxiety of Central and Eastern Europe — the “constant feeling that the region is on the edge of backsliding, because it’s never fully institutionalized good quality democracy” — is coupling with the so-called global illiberal revolution and backlash against liberal elites that is playing out across Europe.  “The more we talk about” global illiberalism, “the more it becomes counterproductive,” Youngs said. “Regimes feel empowered. They’re doing what everyone’s doing, and they’re getting away with it.”

Another reason they’re getting away with it: those normally charged with making sure they’re not are otherwise occupied. “The election of Donald Trump as a president has provided a new opportunity to be seized,” Parvadi said. There is now an expectation that there will be less U.S. attention on what other countries are doing to protect human rights, she said.

And while the European Parliament is looking at the issue of how to deal with, as Youngs put it, the EU’s “club of illiberals,” those countries “argue that for years and years the old member states have not allowed room on the EU agenda for values and social concerns prominent in Eastern Europe.” In other words, they claim their illiberal actions are in part the EU’s fault.

The EU also has its eye off the ball. “It’s really hard to see what the European Union could do, or will do, when it’s really debating its very existence,” said Stefania Kapronczay of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups the Hungarian government has said should be “swept out” of the country.

It is, of course, possible that Hungary won’t have the national consultation, or that it, too, will produce insufficient voter turnout to be valid. It’s possible that Macedonia’s “de-Soros-isation” campaign will come to naught, and that claims that anti-corruption protests in Romania were paid for by Soros won’t stifle efforts to weed out corruption.

But it’s also possible that harm has already been done. Government agencies that work with human rights organizations and media owned by those close to Hungary’s ruling party have already received the message that NGOs are not to be considered Hungarian.

The irony there, said Pardavi, is that, in a Hungary “without these NGOs, the voices and concerns of these groups in society wouldn’t be heard at all.” While the United States is under Trump and the EU grapples with its existential crises, “It’s ultimately Hungarian society who would suffer.”

Photo credit: Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

The Big Deal – an education for every child according to their talents

The unmistakable fact is that skills are in short supply in Sri Lanka.The need for Vocational Guidance and Counselling to help youth of today for seeking opportunities of employment tomorrow needs to be started today.

by Victor Cherubim-Mar 10, 2017

Mar 9, 2017

( March 10, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is no secret that educational facilities for the needs of a changing society in Britain, have lagged behind over decades. The Chinese and the Indians have mastered technical education and seem to be light years away. It is no longer either Skills training or Higher education? In both countries both avenues are growing, changing and developing. Revitalising science and technology has played a significant part in economic growth, scientific progress and social development in China and India. Insecurity of work and decreasing productivity is prevalent in Brexit Britain.

Free Schools to create opportunity 

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond has announced in today’s deadpan Budget additional funding for free schools and indirectly for technical training for students to be work ready after the age of 16.He has said: “Investing in education and skills is the single most important thing that we can do to equip our children for the future”.

The new mantra in Theresa May’s way is “opportunity for all.” Both education and skills training, £500 million for training young people is the biggest shake up in education for those over 16 years. Infrastructure funding of £216 million to meet, rebuild and refurbish existing schools plus £320 million for 140 new free schools. This infrastructure funding is additional to the £215 million hand out to Councils for adaptation for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.

Free Schools funding was the pledge given by the Conservative Party (David Cameron) during the general election in 2015 to open 500 new free schools before the end of Parliament in May 2020. 124 Free Schools have already opened with 243 in process.

Free Schools plan is a core part of ensuring all children receive an education that is suitable to them – “one that allows them to go as far as their talents can take them,” regardless of background and/or ability – “one that meets today’s Britain.

80,000 new free school places will translate to happy parents and perhaps Tory votes. This policy is similar to what Premier S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike did in Sri Lanka years ago to build up the vote bank? Though University education in Britain has been paid for by student loans or by hard pressed parents with the same free at point of use in Scotland, it seems there is a lack of skills for the world of work.

“T” Levels 

When I was at school in Sri Lanka it was “A” Levels, for further studies. Soon we are told it will be “T” Levels. Are we going down the alphabet to set minimum standards of competence for work? “T” Levels is the name given to the overhaul of technical education. Between now and 2027, we are told, 15 new “pathways” will be developed in 15 sector areas where substantial technical training is required to progress into employment. Budget funding for technical education is part of free education.

UK Skills Plan – 15 Skills Sectors 

The 15 Skills Sectors assigned in planning for 2027 are as follows:

1. Agriculture, environment and animal care – preeminent for us in Sri Lanka
2. Business and Administration
3. Catering and Hospitality
4. Childcare and education
5. Construction
6. Creative and Design
7. Digital
8. Engineering
9. Hair and Beauty
10. Health and Science
11. Legal, Finance and Accounting
12. Protective Services
13. Sales, Marketing and Procurement
14. Social Care
15. Transport and logistics

The above Skills Plan is more than just about qualifications. It is achievable standards for employment. Employer led panels in each skill (something more than City & Guilds qualification) is envisaged to develop new standards that will decide technical routes and to draw an “Occupational Map” to show relationship between occupation in each route. The hope is that 11 of the 15 routes will be available as “Two Year College” courses or as Apprenticeships, the other 4 including Sales, Marketing, Social Care, Transport & Logistics, will be available via Apprenticeships.

Are we “work ready” in Sri Lanka?

Before we talk about “Economic Diplomacy” we need to think ahead of “Employment Opportunity”. Education and/or Technical Training is long term planning. Technical Institutes in Sri Lanka are not a novel idea. The first of its kind was established in the latter part of 1893 known as Government Technical School. It later became Ceylon Technical College in 1921.At present we have 38 Technical Colleges scattered throughout Sri Lanka, note worthy of them being at Katubedde. Sri Lanka’s State Minister Skills Development and Vocational Training Minister, Palitha Range Bandara may already be well aware of the UK Skills Plan with 15 Skills sections.

The unmistakable fact is that skills are in short supply in Sri Lanka.The need for Vocational Guidance and Counselling to help youth of today for seeking opportunities of employment tomorrow needs to be started today.

Mexico minister eyes accords with U.S. on trade toward year-end

Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray speaks at a news conference at the Mexican Embassy in Washington March 9, 2017.REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

By David Lawder | WASHINGTON-Fri Mar 10, 2017

Accords to update trade relations between Mexico and the United States could be possible toward the end of this year, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray said on Thursday, hinting at a quicker timetable than U.S. officials have ventured so far.

Mexico is facing tough negotiations with Washington because U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to dump the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the two nations and Canada if he cannot rework it in the United States' favor.

Speaking to reporters in Washington after meeting Trump administration officials, Videgaray said he expected formal talks on commerce to begin around the middle of 2017 and that "possible deals over trade could be reached toward the end of the year."

Videgaray noted that Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo was also meeting with U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who this week said substantive trade talks could begin in the second half of 2017 and might take a year to complete.

Threats by Trump to slap tariffs on Mexican-made goods if the renegotiation of NAFTA does not suit him have sparked fears of a major chill in foreign investment in Mexico and a possible trade war.

Trump has vowed to bring back manufacturing jobs to the United States, saying during his presidential election campaign that Mexico is "killing" the United States on trade.

Still, Videgaray said initial soundings have been positive on reworking NAFTA, which officials say could ultimately lead to tougher rules of origin for goods made in North America.

"All of the preliminary conversations we've had about the potential renegotiation of NAFTA have actually been constructive. There is no talk about unilateral actions, there is talk about the potential for making NAFTA better for the three countries - Mexico, the U.S. and Canada," he said.

Talks have been complicated by Trump's aggressive campaign rhetoric against Mexico and his pledge to make the United States' poorer southern neighbor pay for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out illegal immigrants.

A Twitter spat in January over who would pay for the wall led to the cancellation of a planned meeting between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto.

Videgaray said funding for the wall was not discussed on Thursday, and was it clear when the two leaders would meet next.

"There is no plan for a meeting between the presidents in the immediate future," Videgaray said.

(Additional reporting by Christine Murray in Mexico City; Writing by Dave Graham; Editing by Sandra Maler and Leslie Adler)

Donald Trump Met Russian Ambassador During The Campaign, Despite Repeated Denials

On April 27, Trump met Sergey Kislyak in Washington, D.C., before a big foreign policy speech.

By Amanda Terkel-03/07/2017

President Donald Trump and his advisers have, on dozens of occasions, denied Trump’s campaign aides and other associates had any contact with Russian officials.

Those denials were not true. At least five members of his team met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump officially took office.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried to mitigate the spiraling situation last week, telling reporters the main issue was that Trump himself had never met with any Russian government officials during the campaign.

“The big point here is the president himself knows what his involvement was, and that’s zero,” Huckabee Sanders said on March 3. “And I think that he’s the primary person that should be held responsible, and he had no interaction, and I think that’s what the story should be focused on.”

But according to a May 13, 2016 report in The Wall Street Journal noticed by AmericaBlog, Trump had at least some interaction with Kislyak on April 27, right in the midst of campaign season.

The communication happened right before Trump delivered a foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The Wall Street Journal reported: 

“I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia—from a position of strength only—is possible, absolutely possible,” Mr. Trump said in a foreign-policy speech at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel in April. “Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out.” 

A few minutes before he made those remarks, Mr. Trump met at a VIP reception with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak. Mr. Trump warmly greeted Mr. Kislyak and three other foreign ambassadors who came to the reception.

It is not clear what Trump and Kislyak discussed, or how extensive the interaction was. The New York Times also recently mentioned that Kislyak had attended Trump’s speech. Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest, told the outlet he had simply introduced Trump to Kislyak in a receiving line at the hotel: 

Mr. Simes introduced Mr. Kislyak to Mr. Trump in a receiving line last April at a foreign policy speech hosted by his center at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Mr. Kislyak was one of four ambassadors who sat in the front row for Mr. Trump’s speech at the invitation of the center. Mr. Simes noted that Mr. Sessions, then a senator from Alabama, was there, but he did not notice whether he and the ambassador spoke at that time.

Huckabee Sanders told The Huffington Post on Tuesday that there was no real meeting with Kisylak. 

“The National Interest hosted Mr. Trump’s foreign policy speech and pre-speech reception. Several ambassadors were present. Mr. Trump was at the reception for about five minutes and then went immediately to the podium,” she said. “We have no recollection of who he may have shaken hands with at the reception and we were not responsible for inviting or vetting guests. To state a ‘meeting’ took place is disingenuous and extremely misleading.”

Simes also said he didn’t think there would have been time for an extensive meeting between Trump and the ambassador.

“From everything I saw, when the receiving line was over, the Secret Service led Mr. Trump to a specially cleared holding area behind the podium where he was supposed to speak,” he said Tuesday. “There would have been no opportunity for him to talk to Kislyak separately. After the speech was over, Mr. Trump returned to the holding area and then left the hotel without any time or format for a private encounter with anyone. Again, the Secret Service managed his movements.”

Trump has been unable to move on from his administration’s ties to Russia after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government had interfered in the U.S. election to help Trump defeat Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. So far, there is no evidence of collusion between Trump’s team and the Russian government.

But the administration has taken hits as reports come out that some of the president’s top campaign officials met with Russian officials, despite denying they had done so. Michael Flynn stepped down as national security adviser in February over the issue, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently promised to recuse himself from the Justice Department’s investigations into Russia’s meddling in the presidential race after The Washington Post reported that he had met with Russia’s ambassador twice during the campaign.

During his confirmation hearing, Sessions told senators that he “did not have communications with the Russians.”

Trump himself told NBC News on Jan. 11 that no members of his campaign staff had communicated with Russian officials.

This story has been updated with comment from Dimitri Simes and the White House.

Laziness isn’t why people are poor. And iPhones aren’t why they lack health care.

The real reasons people suffer poverty don't reflect well on the United States.

By Stephen Pimpare March 8

Stephen Pimpare is the author of "A People’s History of Poverty in America" and the forthcoming "Ghettos, Tramps, and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen." He teaches American politics and public policy at the University of New Hampshire.

Two homeless women wait for the bus to take their children to a shelter for the night. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

In response to a question about his party’s plan to increase the cost of health insurance, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) suggested that people should “invest in their own health care” instead of “getting that new iPhone.” He doubled-down on the point in a later interview: “People need to make a conscious choice, and I believe in self-reliance.” Of course, Chaffetz is wrong. But he isn’t alone.

While he has been met with justifiable derision for the comparison (Christopher Ingraham walked through the math for us, pointing out that a year’s worth of health care would equal 23 iPhone 7 Pluses in price), the claim he is making is hardly new. Chaffetz was articulating a commonly held belief that poverty in the United States is, by and large, the result of laziness, immorality and irresponsibility. If only people made better choices — if they worked harder, stayed in school, got married, didn’t have children they couldn’t afford, spent what money they had more wisely and saved more — then they wouldn’t be poor, or so the reasoning goes.

The Washington Post's Brian Fung explains what Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) meant when he said Americans should skip the "new iPhone" and "invest in their own health care," and why that comparison is flawed. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

This insistence that people would not be poor if only they would try harder defines the thinking behind the signature welfare restructuring law of the Clinton era, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It’s the logic at the heart of efforts to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, to drug-test people collecting unemployment insurance or to forbid food stamp recipients to buy steak and lobster.

[The poor are treated like criminals everywhere, even at the grocery store]

Since the invention of the mythic welfare queen in the 1960s, this has been the story we most reliably tell about why people are poor. Never mind that research from across the social sciences shows us, over and again, that it’s a lie. Never mind low wages or lack of jobs, the poor quality of too many schools, the dearth of marriageable males in poor black communities (thanks to a racialized criminal justice system and ongoing discrimination in the labor market), or the high cost of birth control and day care. Never mind the fact that the largest group of poor people in the United States are children. Never mind the grim reality that most American adults who are poor are not poor from lack of effort but despite it.
This deep denial serves a few functions, however.

First, it’s founded on the assumption that the United States is a land of opportunity, where upward mobility is readily available and hard work gets you ahead. We’ve recently taken to calling it grit. While grit may have ushered you up the socioeconomic ladder in the late 19th century, it’s no longer up to the task today. Rates of intergenerational income mobility are, in fact, higher in France, Spain, Germany, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and other countries in the world than they are here in the United States. And that mobility is in further decline here, an indicator of the falling fortunes not just of poor and low-income Americans, but of middle-class ones, too.

After House Republicans released a proposal to transform the Affordable Care Act, members of their own party offered a mixture of support and suggestions for changes to the plan. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

To accept this as reality is to confront the unpleasant fact that myths of American exceptionalism are just that — myths — and many of us would fare better economically (and live longer, healthier lives, too) had we been born elsewhere. That cognitive dissonance is too much for too many of us, so we believe instead that people can overcome any obstacle if they would simply work hard enough.

[American policy fails at reducing child poverty because it aims to fix the poor]

Second, to believe that poverty is a result of immorality or irresponsibility helps people believe it can’t happen to them. But it can happen to them (and to me and to you). Poverty in the United States is common, and according to the Census Bureau, over a three-year period, about one-third of all U.S. residents slip below the poverty line at least once for two months or more.

Third — and conveniently, perhaps, for people like Chaffetz or House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) — this stubborn insistence that people could have more money or more health care if only they wanted them more absolves the government of having to intervene and use its power on their behalf. In this way of thinking, reducing access to subsidized health insurance isn’t cruel, it’s responsible, a form of tough love in which people are forced to make good choices instead of bad ones. This is both patronizing and, of course, a gross misreading of the actual outcome of laws like these.

There’s one final problem with these kinds of arguments, and that is the implication that we should be worried by the possibility of poor people buying the occasional steak, lottery ticket or, yes, even an iPhone. Set aside the fact that a better cut of meat may be more nutritious than a meal Chaffetz would approve of, or the fact that a smartphone may be your only access to email, job notices, benefit applications, school work and so on. Why do we begrudge people struggling to get by the occasional indulgence? Why do we so little value pleasure and joy? Why do we insist that if you are poor, you should also be miserable? Why do we require penitence?

Just because what Chaffetz is saying isn’t novel doesn’t mean it isn’t uninformed and dangerous. Chaffetz, Ryan and their compatriots offer us tough love without the love, made possible through their willful ignorance of (or utter disregard for) what life is actually like for so many Americans who do their very best against great odds and still, nonetheless, have little to show for it. Sometimes not even an iPhone.

Use buggy covers to combat air pollution danger, parents warned

Parents should protect their infants by using covers on prams during the school run, particularly in the morning, according to experts

Young children are far more susceptible to pollution than adults, due to their immature systems and lower body weight. Photograph: Dinendra Haria/REX/Shutterstock

Damian Carrington-Thursday 9 March 2017

Parents should use covers on their prams during the school run to protect their infants from air pollution, experts have warned.

Scientists tested the pollution levels inside prams to assess the exposure of infants taken on the school run with older siblings. The researchers found that the fine particle pollution from vehicle exhausts, which is particularly harmful, was higher during the morning journey.

“Young children are far more susceptible to pollution than adults, due to their immature and developing systems and lower body weight,” said Dr Prashant Kumar, at the University of Surrey and who led the new research. “These findings provide an insight for families who walk to and from nursery and primary schools with young children. Essentially, children could be at risk of breathing in some nasty and harmful chemical species.”

“One of the simplest ways to combat this is to use a barrier between the in-pram children and the exhaust emissions, especially at pollution hotspots such as traffic intersections, so parents should use pram covers if at all possible,” he said.

The new study, published in the journal Environmental Pollution, placed detectors for particulate pollution in prams and made 64 journeys to and from schools in Guildford at drop-off and pick-up times. They found that air pollution spiked at road junctions and by bus stands, and that fine particle pollution was higher in the mornings, when the roads are busiest.

“Fine particles show larger health impacts compared to their larger counterparts and at the young age children are more susceptible to particulate pollution, suggesting a clear need for precautionary measures to limit their exposure during their transport along the busy roadsides,” the researchers concluded.

Previous work on whether adults are exposed to less pollution than children, who are closer to the level of exhaust pipes, has produced conflicting results. One study showed children were exposed to twice as much particle pollution, while another found children in buggies were exposed to lower levels of fine particles. The new work found no significant differences.

Levels of particulate pollution in the UK are generally below legal limits, but 40 of the 51 air quality zones in the UK exceed the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guideline limits for fine particulate matter, and the WHO has urged the UK to do more to cut pollution. Earlier this week, the WHO revealed that around the world 560,000 children under five years old die each year as a result of air pollution.

Particulate pollution is estimated to cause a total of 29,000 early deaths in adults each year in the UK. Levels of another key pollutant – nitrogen dioxide – are above legal levels in much of the UK. A recent study commissioned by the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, showed over 800 schools, nurseries and colleges in the capital alone are in areas with illegally high NO2 levels.

On Thursday, Khan announced the first of 12 “low emission bus zones”, where only the cleanest buses will be allowed to run. The first is along Putney High Street, a notorious pollution blackspot, with others to follow including in Brixton.

Khan, who said the zones represent the most extensive network of clean buses of any major world city, commented: “London’s toxic air is an outrage. [This] will make a big difference to the pollution caused by our public transport system.”

Research published by Kumar’s team in February showed that drivers in London are the commuters least exposed to harmful particulate pollution, when compared with those taking the underground or the bus. “There is definitely an element of environmental injustice among those commuting in London, with those who create the most pollution having the least exposure to it,” he said.

14 Health Benefits of Dark Chocolate, According to Science

Photo Credit: iko/Shutterstock

By Jacky Miller / AlterNet-March 8, 2017

Dark chocolate is not a guilty pleasure; it actually comes with many health benefits. Real dark chocolate—not processed and sweetened milk chocolate—is chock-full of incredible health benefits.

Some nutrients are destroyed in the process of making chocolate available for the general market. Make sure the chocolate you buy is within the healthy range. Check the label: chocolate with a 60 percent or higher cocoa content is packed full of nutrients and antioxidants. Often called bittersweet, it has minimal sugar. The best way to get all the nutrients from chocolate is simply to use unsweetened cocoa nibs. The bitter, crunchy, seed-like snack isn't the best-tasting treat, but its nutritional profile makes it worthwhile.

1. Dark chocolate can help prevent depression.

14 Health Benefits of Dark Chocolate.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Families of disappeared protest outside Mullaitivu DS

08 Mar  2017

Families of the missing and forcibly disappeared who have been protesting across the North-East, protested today outside the District Secretariat office in Mullaitivu.

While Sri Lankan delegates have said at the UN human rights council that the government is making progress in the issue of missing persons, such as being a few months away from setting up the Office of Missing Persons, frustration among victims continues to grow.

Words in need of actions: Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council and beyond

Mar 8, 2017

Last Friday, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released its long awaited written update on Sri Lanka – a review of the government’s progress in implementing its commitments on accountability, reconciliation and human rights, as agreed in October 2015 under UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1. The report pulls few punches, making clear the enormous gulf between what was promised and what has been delivered, and underscoring the need for continued international pressure and engagement. Ahead of a critical meeting at the Council in two weeks’ time (22 March), during which a further resolution – currently being negotiated – is expected, we ask: what next? And what lessons can be learnt from the experience of the past 18 months?

The OHCHR report: key findings

In February, an evaluation by the Sri Lanka Campaign found that the government of Sri Lanka was falling seriously short on the promises that it made on justice and reconciliation in October 2015. A breakdown of the text of Resolution 30/1 revealed that it had lived up to its word on a mere three pledges, with seventeen largely or wholly unimplemented, and a further five only partially achieved. The OHCHR report corroborates and confirms these findings, with expressions of praise and concern mapping closely with our tally.

While welcoming the government’s progress in several areas, in particular the spirit of constructive engagement with OHCHR and the completion of a consultation process with victims, the report cites a plethora of shortcomings across a range of issues. These include, among others, serious concerns about the ongoing use of torture; the continued harassment and surveillance of human rights defenders and victims; unfulfilled promises to return military held land and establish an Office on Missing Persons; the continued operation and use of draconian anti-terrorism laws; and, crucially, the failure to establish an independent judicial mechanism to bring about accountability for serious crimes. A reminder of the pressing rationale of the last of these commitments is provided by the arms length list of ‘emblematic cases’ which the report cites – the lack of progress upon which, it concludes, “only strengthens the case for the case for the establishment of a specialized court to deal with system crimes, staffed by specialized personnel and supported by international practitioners, as recommended by the Consultation Task Force in its final report” [emphasis added].

On a more general note, the report finds that the various of bodies tasked with taking forwards the reconciliation agenda “are yet to present a sufficiently convincing or comprehensive transitional justice strategy to overcome the legacy of mistrust and scepticism left by a number of inconclusive ad hoc commissions”. It goes on to state that “stronger, tangible results need to be forthcoming without further delay” and recommends that that the government “set out a clear plan of action” to implement its outstanding commitments.

Strengthening the resolution text

In terms of the frank appraisal of Sri Lanka’s recent progress that is needed – so far, so good. But what are the prospects for turning the report’s findings and recommendations into a blueprint for action on 22 March? Earlier in the year, in a speech delivered by Foreign Minister Managala Samaraweera in London, the government of Sri Lanka signaled to the international community it’s openness to a ‘technical rollover’ resolution – a short procedural text that would keep its October 2015 promises in play for a further period of monitoring and scrutiny by the OHCHR and the Human Rights Council.

Recent reports however, have cast doubt on the solidity of that assurance, with suggestions that the government may be seeking to water down core commitments – in particular its pledge to establish a judicial mechanism, with the participation of “Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators”, to investigate allegations of serious human rights violations. As affirmed by the ongoing failure of ordinary judicial processes to provide redress for victims, and the conclusions of the recent consultation on transitional justice, such a step remains indispensable for an accountability process which has the confidence of victims and is capable of tackling Sri Lanka’s entrenched culture of impunity.

A recent draft of the resolution currently being negotiated by Sri Lanka and members of the Council (seen by the Sri Lanka Campaign) suggests that this goal is yet to be conceded to the government. But in light of some concerning political dynamics at the Council, and the apparent softening of positions on Sri Lanka, key states leading the drafting process must remain steadfast in their commitment to a justice mechanism, whose credibility is guaranteed through significant international involvement. A watering down of this key clause would represent a major betrayal of war survivors who have consistently demanded it, and a denial of the very serious crimes which gave rise to it in the first place.

There are several additional areas in which members of the Human Rights Council, and in particular the UK, can and must use their influence to strengthen the text.

First and foremost, the resolution must welcome and endorse the report of the Consultation Task Force on transitional justice. This was a historic process, unprecedented in terms of its claim to articulate, credibly and comprehensively, the needs and wishes of Sri Lanka’s war affected communities. The Human Rights Council must help empower it to become the catalyst for change that many had hoped – but has thus far been resisted by the government of Sri Lanka – by giving due weight to its recommendations and findings, and ensuring the transitional justice agenda is framed in terms of it going forwards.

Second, the text must commit the government of Sri Lanka to developing a timetable for the implementation of its outstanding commitments. Looking back over the past 18 months, it is clear that the failure to do so has provided cover for the government of Sri Lanka’s open-ended interpretation of its obligations. Scheduling the delivery of commitments with transparent public benchmarks would provide focal points through which Sri Lanka’s citizens, civil society and the international community could hold the government to account on an ongoing basis. Moreover, it would help ensure that the four ‘pillars’ of transitional justice remain interconnected, and provide a shield against those who would seek to hive off the question of accountability and keep it on the backburner. Given that the forthcoming resolution is likely to establish a longer monitoring and reporting period than under 30/1 (18 months), with an oral update by OHCHR in March 2018 and a written update in March 2019 (24 months and 36 months respectively), it will be especially important that the path ahead is marked with milestones – and that the potential for promises to be kicked into the long grass is limited.

Third, the text must encourage implementation of the recommendations of the UN treaty bodies – such as the Committee Against Torture and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women – which have played a vital role in shining a light on ongoing patterns of rights abuses in Sri Lanka, and provided constructive and practical feedback on how to tackle them.

Finally, the text should acknowledge in an explicit manner the extremely limited progress made to date in the implementation of the commitments under 30/1, with language accurately reflecting the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are yet to be fulfilled.

Making it count

A strong resolution on 22 March will be vital for ensuring that the government of Sri Lanka delivers on its commitments to war affected communities. Continued international monitoring, engagement and pressure still matters – indeed, perhaps more so than ever in light of the narrowing window of opportunity for meaningful reform. But the experience of the past 18 months, including the achingly slow pace of progress and the visible backsliding on key pledges, should prompt serious thinking about the limits to what promises made on paper at the Council can achieve alone. A conversation about the effectiveness of the international community’s current approach to supporting the delivery of a meaningful transitional justice process in Sri Lanka is long overdue and needs to start now.

The warm re-embrace of the government of Sri Lanka by key players in the international community over the past 18 months– often couched in terms of ‘constructive engagement’ and ‘positive partnership’ – is plainly failing to bring about the change that survivors demand, and which sustainable peace requires. The recent decision by the EU Commission to restore GSP+ trade privileges to Sri Lanka, in violation of its own criteria and with blatant disregard for the damning findings to the contrary by the UN Committees, is a case in point for the argument that far too much is being given away for far too little in return.

Such moves have been compounded by extremely weak political messaging. In November 2016, the UK Minister of State chose to use the platform resulting from their visit to provide a tacit endorsement of Sri Lanka’s plans to expand its peacekeeping operations – despite ongoing concerns about the total lack of impunity for past sexual violence among the military, and the absence of evidence of the vetting and punishment of past offenders. As recently as last week, the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka was photographed observing a military ceremony on illegally seized civilian land in Mullikulam. Meanwhile, questions persist over whether funding from the international community on issues such as de-militarization, land and security sector reform is being applied with sufficient transparency and teeth.

The raised expectations that followed the October 2015 resolution has today given way to bitter frustration, not merely about the pace, but also about the direction of change in Sri Lanka. This is particularly true among war affected communities in the North and East who have invested so much time, energy and hope into the current process, often against their own best instincts. The depth of feeling is underscored by the recent call from several individuals and groups to abandon the current Human Rights Council mandated process, and instead pursue a referral of Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court via the UN General Assembly. Whilst that proposal requires further elaboration in order to show how the many obstacles to its attainment could be overcome, the international community must sit up and listen to the depth of feeling that it signifies.

War affected communities in Sri Lanka will not, and cannot, wait indefinitely for truth, justice and reconciliation. A re-affirming of those goals, and a renewed plan for achieving them, must begin with an agreement on a strong resolution text in two weeks’ time. But it will require much more than mere words from the government and international community in the months and years ahead.