( April 7, 2017, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Trump announced a new executive order aimed at pushing forward his trade agenda. Targeting the US trade deficit, the order directs the Commerce Department and the US Trade Representative to lead an interagency investigation and produce a “comprehensive report” on the causes of the US trade deficit. They are to do so by looking at specific industries and trade policies by foreign countries that contribute to the continuing gap between US exports and imports.
According to the US Census data on trade, the US ran about a $500 billion net trade deficit in Goods and Services with the rest of the world in 2016. The US runs a larger deficit when looking only at Goods (such as manufactures, agriculture, etc.), at $750 billion, while the county runs a surplus of about $250 billion in Services (such as business services, finance, information technology, etc.). Broken down by country, the largest Goods deficits are with China (over $54 billion in the first two months of 2017) and Mexico, as well as Saudi Arabia (petroleum imports) and the European Union. In Services, it is noteworthy that the US runs sizable surpluses with all of these same countries.
As the Trump administration looks to improve the US trade position, the underlying presumption of this executive order is that these trade deficits may emanate from unfair practices on the part of US trading partners. Unfair impediments could range from prohibited subsidies, inappropriate barriers to US exports, or manipulation of exchange rates. In order to create jobs, bring in more fairness to exchanges, and update mutual relationships, the President’s executive order plans to provide the empirical basis for an anticipated newly equilibrated trade policy. After all, it has been 70 years since the global trade institutions still in charge today were designed and implemented.
It will be important to clearly understand what deficit numbers mean. Take the example of Saudi Arabia. Despite recent increases in domestic oil production thanks to fracking, the US remains a net importer of oil. We weaken the doctrine formulated by Henry Kissinger to keep our oil reserves in the ground if possible and import from others willing to deplete their stock. That way, Dr. Kissinger declared, we will hold crucial reserves for emergencies. In an era of new technologies, such a shift in doctrine makes sense, but it does also affect national security concerns if rapid shifts are required.
Published trade numbers do not show underlying supply chains and cross-border value added activities. Ever since the 1994 creation of NAFTA, many US companies, such as the auto industry, have developed cross-border supply chains. Parts and components are produced in the United States and shipped to Mexico, where they are assembled and shipped back to the US as a finished car. Under current accounting, Mexico runs a surplus as their export is measured as the whole value of the car. This “deficit” hides the real value of the trade – cheaper cars for consumers, more domestic jobs producing components, and higher wages for our neighbor to the South, which in turn reduces immigration problems.
As Commerce and USTR get ready to dig into the trade numbers, they may not like all they’ll find – “deficits” tell only part of the story, and many American jobs count on the global supply chains and resource imports. Doing comprehensive research on trade and its limited reporting is valuable input for future new policy formulation. This is also the time for our allies and trading partners to come forward with their trade data insights to help make the picture clear, complete, and transparent.
Professor Michael Czinkota (czinkotm@georgetown.edu) teaches international marketing at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business in Washington D.C. and the University of Kent at Canterbury, U.K. His key book (with Ilkka Ronkainen) is International Marketing, 10th ed., CENGAGE
A city showing the effect of Climate Change. Source: kwest/Shutterstock
8th April 2017
PEOPLE who are driven to migrate by floods, droughts and other disasters linked to climate change come overwhelmingly from middle-income countries, not the poorest parts of the world, as is commonly believed, new research finds.
And those who move abroad due to natural disasters are likely to be highly educated, suggesting climate change could exacerbate “brain drain” from developing countries, according to Linguere Mously Mbaye, a consultant for the African Development Bank.
Very poor people cannot afford to migrate and the richest have other ways of coping such as accessing social services in the wake of disasters, she found.
There are no reliable estimates of the number of people who have migrated or will do so due to environmental changes. But forecasts range from 25 million to 1 billion globally by 2050, according to the International Organization for Migration.
The issue has garnered political attention amid a global refugee crisis and led to growing calls to give people fleeing climate-linked disasters similar protections to political refugees under international law.
But the reality of climate migration is often misunderstood, said Mbaye, whose research was recently published by online database IZA World of Labor.
“People think we’ll have a whole bunch of people coming to rich countries due to climate change, but they overestimate (this),” she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “If you look at the literature, it’s not that straightforward.”
Between 2008 and 2014, developing countries accounted for 95 percent of global displacement due to disasters, but 86 percent of those uprooted came from middle-income countries such as India, China and Pakistan, and only 9 percent from lower-income countries, she found.
On top of the misconception that climate migrants come from poor nations, people tend to assume that climate change causes people to move overseas when in reality, most move within their own countries or to neighbouring ones, she said.
In Bangladesh, for example, researchers found that moderate flooding over more than a decade increased people’s likelihood of moving locally but made them less likely to migrate long-distance, Mbaye said.
But in places like sub-Saharan Africa, weather shifts that hurt farming can drive villagers to cities, which in turn may put a strain on urban jobs and fuel migration overseas.
Despite myriad warnings of displacement caused by climate change, the world remains unprepared to deal with the problem, experts said last month in a policy brief for the Group of 20 major economies, adding that international law and aid policies need urgent reform.
To prevent large-scale displacement, governments should fund infrastructure projects and social protection programmes so that families can cope with climate shocks, experts said.
“Investing in resilience in source countries is absolutely crucial to helping people remain in place, which they often prefer,” said Shiloh Fetzek, a senior fellow at the U.S. Center for Climate and Security.
“But migration shouldn’t be seen as a failure of resilience. Migration is often an important part of resilience,” she added. -Reuters
World Health Day is celebrated every year on 7 April and marks the anniversary of the founding of the World Health Organisation (WHO). The WHO has chosen the theme ‘Depression – let’s talk’ to celebrate World Health Day this year. The rationale for choosing this theme is due to the rising number of people living with depression across the world but a significantly low number of people coming forward seeking help. This is despite depression being a treatable illness. Stigma surrounding mental illness is considered as one of the main barriers for people accessing help. Therefore, the chosen theme to celebrate World Health Day is apt and an obvious one. This article is aimed at the public at large, aiming to generate a conversation about the what, how and why questions related to depression. The latter part is aimed at practitioners and policymakers in healthcare.
For HIV-positive eastern Ukrainians, the struggle against Russian-backed separatists isn't just about dignity — it's about their right to stay alive.
BY SOPHIE PINKHAM-PHOTOGRAPHY BY MISHA FRIEDMAN-MARCH 31, 2017
On a rainy day last fall, longtime AIDS activist Olga Palamarchuk took me back to her new home in Odessa, Ukraine. To call it a home might be too generous; it was a chilly basement room in a halfway house for recovering drug users. But Olga and her teenage daughter were happy to have a roof over their heads, two years after they fled Donetsk, a center of the war between Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country. Olga is one of the estimated 1.7 million people displaced by the conflict. She participated in the massive demonstrations at Kiev’s central square, Maidan Nezalezhnosti, in 2013 and 2014, and in local pro-Maidan protests in Donetsk, where she was severely beaten by titushki, or paid thugs. Soon armed men — supporters of the Russian-leaning, anti-Maidan separatist movement — were shooting and beating whomever they pleased. “I was able to laugh at the explosions,” Olga told me, “but when the fighting started on my own street, I knew I had to leave.” Olga and her mother caught the next-to-last train out of Donetsk; Olga’s daughter had already departed.
One of the common practices of the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration, especially in the North and East of Sri Lanka after the end of the conflict, was the forceful encroachment of land that belonged to private owners, often from the most marginalized communities, to implement 'development initiatives.' According to the National Physical Plan 2011 - 2030, passed in 2007, large swaths of land in the North and the East were earmarked for development activities and at the end of the war those areas were taken over by the security forces instead of resettling those who were displaced. The present administration has also allowed this policy to continue.
The entire Walikamam North in the Jaffna District is held by the military and those who used to live and work in this area have been languishing in IDP camps or live on rented properties for seven long years. A 50-acre land that was inhabited by about 45 families in Iranamadu, Kilinochchi is now held by the Army and the Air Force. A similar situation prevails in the Malayalapuram North, Kilinochchi where a 20 acre land, which was the home to 20 families, is held by the Army. Meanwhile a 10 kilometre stretch of beach front, which was used by 300 fisher families along Punagari, Mulangavil and Iranativu areas are now being held by the Navy. Around 50 acres of Paraviyanpark, Kilinochchi which was used by about 75 families is now held by the Army. Ten acres of Thiruwaiaru, Kilinochchi are also being held by the Army.
A 525-acre land in Kopapilaw, Mullaitivu, which was used by 320 families is now declared as a high security zone and is controlled by the security forces. A 90-acre land, where 84 families used to live in Puthukudiyiruppu, is now controlled by the Navy.
Engaged in agriculture
Another 2,500 acres from Mollikulam, Malankadu and Marichchikaddi villages are also held by the Navy. Around 310 families, engaged in agriculture and fishing, used to live in these areas and most of the families are now dispersed across the Northern Province. A one kilometre beachfront at Vidaththaltivu, Mannar is held by the Navy and the Army and this has led to the displacement of 200 fisher families. Navy, Army and Police have also established camps in a three-acre land in Pallimune, Mannar which was previously inhabited by 22 fisher families.
In some of the lands held by the security forces, we have seen the establishment of tourist hotels. In Panama, in the Ampara District, occupied by the Navy, a hotel named Lagoon Cabana has been established. Meanwhile, a hotel named Thal Sevana is built at Walikamam North and Navy maintains a number of tourist bungalows in Mollikulam, Mannar.
Sampur, Trincomalee was earmarked as the site for a coal power plant by the National Physical Plan and thus 3, 200 hectares of land was declared a high security zone, but in fact was reserved for the establishment, ignoring 1651 families who were displaced from the area. A number of environmental organizations lodged lawsuits against the construction of the power plant and the Courts, after considering our requests, directed the government to terminate the project. After the verdict, most of the land, apart from 505 acres, was handed back to those who were displaced. This is only one example to illustrate that the declaration of a land as a high security zone, is in most cases a pretext for reserving the said land for development initiatives. This is the main reason why a number of people, displaced in the North and the East, are still not been resettled. Even now close to a 100,000 Sri Lankans live in 110 refugee camps in India. Nine hundred and seventy-one families, displaced from Walikamam North, live in 32 IDP camps. In addition, a significant number of people live, for over 7 years, in houses that belong to their relatives. Since a significant number of families were settled away from where they used to live, they face a number of social and economic issues.
At the end of the war 1,220 acres in Panama, which was inhabited by 350 families, were taken over by the Navy and the Air Force. Initially the home to a number of camps, the land is now where a tourist hotel, Lagoon cabana, is established. In 11 February 2015 the Cabinet decided that the land should be returned to the people, a decision that was reiterated by the Courts of Law and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. However, still the Security Forces, due to political backing from sections of the government, has not released the land. Most of those who were displaced from Panama are living with their relatives and eek a living as labourers.
The situation is not limited to the North and East. Similar scenarios are being played across the country and a significant number of people, who were displaced due to development activities, have not been compensated or resettled in habitable areas. For example, around 750 families who lived off agriculture and animal farming were displaced due to Uma Oya Multi-Purpose Scheme, Moragahakanda and Kalu Ganga irrigation schemes. They have been resettled in a number of locations which are alien to them.
Not compensated
They had not been compensated and they were not resettled according to the guidelines set by the National Involuntary Resettlement Policy and Land Acquisition Act. Most of those displaced do not have access to necessary infrastructure, including drinking water, and only a limited number of affluent persons among those displaced have received compensation and suitable alternative land. This is another indication that compensating and resettling the marginal communities is not a priority for the government or those implementing these projects. Since these people have been settled in lands which are unsuitable for their traditional livelihoods, agriculture and animal keeping, they now face grave economic difficulties.
Three thousand one hundred farming families from Bandarawela and Ella Divisional Secretariat areas have been displaced due to side effects of Uma Oya Multi-Purpose Development Scheme. There has been no systematic mechanism to resettle or compensate them and to ensure that there is a smooth transition for these people when they start a new life.
The government also continues to lease out large swaths of land used by small scale farmers, which often contain their water sources, to multinational companies. Those companies have been given large swaths of land which are of great importance to farmers. This has adversely affected the farmers who have now been compelled to sell their land to the multinational companies and become labourers in the large scale agricultural projects. Meanwhile, Salapearu lagoon, Trincomalee has been taken over by a company for salt mining and prawn farming. This has displaced about 3, 000 fishing families. Kuchchaveli beach, Pasikudah and Nilaveli have also become no go areas for 6,000 fishermen due to massive tourism oriented development projects. Most of these fishermen have been forced to migrate to other areas, often leading to conflict.
Superficial amendments
Colombo Port City Project, which was temporarily halted by the government, but was allowed to recommence after a few superficial amendments, has endangered the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen.
One of the main reasons for the displacements is the incomplete Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) which has not properly taken into account the extent of the impact of the compensation that needs to be paid for those affected.
(Written by Director of Environmental Conservation Trust)
( April 7, 2017, Paris, Sri Lanka Guardian) The 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council – UN HRC has just concluded, allowing Sri Lanka another two years to implement the UN HRC resolution 30/1. In every meeting held with VIPs including diplomats, myself and a few others made it very clear that whether it is given 2 years or another 20 years, the present government or any other government in Sri Lanka will not implement 30/1. Especially a war crimes inquiry with international judges, prosecutors and lawyers. As soon as the resolution was passed in September 2015, we predicted that Sri Lanka would not implement it.
When I said during one of the meetings that the present government is a minority government and does not have the two third majority required to amend or introduce a new constitution – the government reply was that they won 165 votes in support of every budget in the past. This shows how they cheat the international community. Voting for a budget and voting for a constitution are not the same. A country’s budget estimates government revenues and expenditures over a specific period of time, whereas an amendment or change to a constitution changes the practices of a country! If the present government wants to see this in action, let them propose a budget giving a good increase in pensions, salaries and other benefits for ex-Presidents, ex-Prime Ministers, Ministers and others. Then they will see their budget supported by everyone, even the so-called joint opposition. My point is that since 1948, all Sri Lankan governments have successfully fooled and cheated Tamils. Now they find a way to fool and cheat the international community. I wish them good luck in their endeavour.
There are some interesting affairs which took place in the 34th session of the HRC that many inside the UN HRC and outside do not know.
As far as the Tamil lobby is concerned, there was a jumbo team with 60-70 people from various parts of the globe. The usual hardworking organisations had a small number of activists doing quality work, proving that ‘quality’ is better than ‘quantity’. One Tamil organisation lost its credibility after creating huge fictional publicity about arresting a war criminal in Geneva, whereas they achieved nothing.
There were some people from Tamil Nadu in the jumbo Tamil team. Of course the regular attendance at the UN HRC by Dr S Ramadoss organisation Pasumai Thaayagam / Green Motherland does constructive work. Founder S Ramadoss’ son Dr Anbumani Ramadoss made a very good intervention in the HRC. It was well received because it was an intervention by an ex-health Minister of India. Anbumani said that, “……….The Tamils in Sri Lanka have been subjected to constant racial abuses, ethnic cleansing and structural genocide since its independence, which culminated in the killings of more than 1,00,000 Tamils in 2009 by the Sri Lankan Government forces. Even after 8 years Justice has not yet reached the victims………” (Excerpt)
Courageous interventions
Some others from Tamil Nadu worked purely on emotion rather than anything useful for the victims. Many in the HRC said that the emotional activists from Tamil Nadu should lobby their own country India, before making a trip to the HRC in Geneva.
Another two courageous interventions were delivered by Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu on behalf of the Franciscans International and Nimalka Fernando of IMADR – the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism. Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu said that;
‘‘………..The Special Procedures and the Consultation Task Force – CTF on Reconciliation Mechanisms appointed by the Government, of which I was the Secretary, have also made a number of recommendations adding to and reinforcing Resolution 30/1. The Consultation Task Force Report records the concerns and expectations of over 7,300 Sri Lankans from all communities, on the gamut of issues of transitional justice and its pivotal importance. The Government must heed the voices of its citizens. In particular, the expedited return of land, the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its replacement with legislation consonant with international human rights standards, a political and constitutional settlement of the conflict, demilitarization, an end to the culture of impunity, upholding the rule of law and the establishment of the Office of Missing Persons and the other mechanisms and measures identified in Resolution 30/1 and the Task Force Report“ (Excerpt).
Ms Nimalka Fernando said that, “On the other hand, mixed messages from the leaders of the ruling coalition give rise to an uncertain future for the justice and accountability process. I speak with a sense of sadness as we experience the transitional justice agenda being placed on the backburner. The OMP Act adopted in Parliament urgently is now being deliberately stalled. Once again we see the intrusive manner which the security and military have invaded the executive and administrative life of our country. Military run businesses still continue to operate with impunity. Releases of land are painfully slow. Political prisoners still languish in jail cells. Surveillance and harassment in war affected areas continue unabated. The President’s own party is disavowing the constitutional reform agenda which they were elected to pursue”. (Excerpt)
Soon after Nimalka Fernando returned to Colombo, demonstrations and vigils took place in front of her residence in Colombo. Why? Because she spoke of realities and truth to the participants of the UN HRC. Slandering is happening via Face book and in a ruthless newspaper. All this is happening under so-called ‘good governance’. So, who is presently governing Sri Lanka?
Sri Lankan war criminals in the HRC
Now let me come to the actual information not known to many inside and outside the HRC.
Sarath Weerasekara is a retired Sri Lanka Navy Rear admiral. His right-hand men are Keerthi Warnakulasooriya and former PLOTE cadre Palipodi Jegatheeswaran of Batticaloa. They were brought into the 34th session of the HRC, along with another businessman from Sharjah – UAE. They were fully supported by a chap known in the HRC as Sanjoy. In fact, Sanjoy was a Buddhist monk from Bangladesh who originally attended the then UN Human Rights Commission in the 90s. Later he gave up his robe, got married, and is living in Geneva with his wife and children.
Sanjoy is known as the Geneva representative for a very famous UK based NGO, ‘Liberation’. For several years, Sanjoy’s job has been to bring people from India to speak of atrocities committed by India. When one carefully analyses his activities in the HRC, it is strongly believed that Pakistan is behind him.
Being a long time member of Liberation, I complained about Sanjoy’s hidden activities in two Annual General Meetings of the organisation. But for unknown reasons, Liberation never took any action against him. There were occasions when Sanjoy blocked some interventions that were supposed to be made on Sri Lanka by Liberation. In the last two HRC sessions, Fr S. J. Emmanuel’s interventions on behalf of Liberation were blocked by Sanjoy.
Such a man has now begun to bring a group of war criminals from Sri Lanka to the HRC. Concerning activities in the HRC, it is obvious that Pakistani Intelligence is either working with Sri Lankan intelligence or with the so-called Sri Lankan joint-opposition or with both. However, it is purely the work of Sri Lankan politicians from the South, with the purpose of delaying any action the international community might take, until Sri Lanka fully achieves its four pillars in the North and East – Colonisation, Buddhisation, Sinhalisation and militarisation.
Sarath Weerasekara is from Ampara and is a politician belonging to the so-called joint-opposition. He was a Member of Parliament from 2010 to 2015 and a very close associate of dictator former President Mahinda Rajapasa. Spouses of Weerasekara and Gotabaya Rajapaksa are relatives. Weerasekara was a Deputy Minister of Labour in the previous government.
Sarath Weerasekara’s right-hand man Keerthi Warnakulasooriya is well-known to the staff of the UN HRC Secretariat, because there have been many complaints made against him. He used to say he was a journalist from a Singhalese newspaper which publishes cock and bull stories.
Along with these notorious guys another well known eliminator from Batticaloa, who works very closely with Sri Lankan military intelligence, attended the 34th session. He is Palipodi Jegatheeswaran who worked with all paramilitary groups – PLOTE, Razzek group / EPRLF, EPDP, Karuna / Pillayan and is responsible for several killings of civilians in the East. Presently he lives in Switzerland on some pretext and uses a wheel-chair. It is believed that he was brought to Switzerland by the Sri Lanka government. When I was walking towards the main entrance of the HRC, this killer was waving at me, signalling to come over to him. I ignored him.
The man from Sharjah, UAE, is believed to be managing a company in Sharjah, belonging to Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Pakistani backing
This notorious group believed to be backed by Pakistan have just begun their lobby in Geneva. They say that they wiped out the most notorious terrorist group and saved the Tamils. They find it difficult to answer any question on war crime and command responsibility. In future, we will possibly see more and more war criminals and members of paramilitary groups in Geneva, to justify the war crimes they committed.
Since the 33rd session in September 2016, another issue has found a place in the HRC. This is also with the backing of Pakistan. The Pakistani-based NGO, ‘World Muslim Congress’ has been working for a very long time in UN forums. They speak only about the atrocities committed by India. In October 1990, when the Muslims of Jaffna were evacuated by the LTTE, the World Muslim Congress knew about it and kept silent. But now as they find their lobby presumably difficult against India, they make use of Jaffna Muslims who have the world’s sympathy.
In fact what happened to the Muslims of Jaffna is unjustifiable and the LTTE tendered their apology several times. When there are hundreds of NGOs in the UN, why is the World Muslim Congress taking the lead on Jaffna Muslims? This collaboration may damage the sympathy Jaffna Muslims have globally.
India is nowhere now! As China and Pakistan have placed their footsteps very firmly in Sri Lanka, India which gave several promises to the Tamils, turns a blind eye. There was a time when Sri Lanka listened to India. But now China and Pakistan have made Sri Lanka ignore the regional superpower.
India is, however, answerable to the Tamils in Sri Lanka – North, East as well as the up country / plantation Tamils. The Indo-Lanka accord, signed in July 1987, caused tremendous difficulties to the people of the North and East and many casualties. Also, India is blamed by the Tamils for being behind the elimination of the LTTE in May 2009.
Events during the 34th session of the UN HRC predict that the battle-field in Sri Lanka has now moved to Geneva. Firstly, the Tamil lobby for an independent international inquiry on war crimes; secondly, the ex-soldiers and paramilitary lobby on accusing the LTTE and thirdly, the Jaffna Muslims lobby about their plight – all three are going to clash in future sessions in Geneva.
Some politicians previously in power and some currently in power in Sri Lanka are directing this counter-lobby of ex-soldiers, paramilitaries and Jaffna Muslims. The idea of a counter-lobby and cover-up of genocide is believed to be the brain-child of two failed Sri Lankan diplomats to Geneva.
Soon after the 34th session of the HRC, some people have been followed by unknown people in their place of residence. Hope the battle in Geneva will not cause any casualties in or outside the HRC. (End)
The 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council – UN HRC has just concluded, allowing Sri Lanka another two years to implement the UN HRC resolution 30/1. In every meeting held with VIPs including diplomats,
myself and a few others made it very clear that whether it is given 2 years or another 20 years, the present government or any other government in Sri Lanka will not implement 30/1. Especially a war crimes inquiry with international judges, prosecutors and lawyers. As soon as the resolution was passed in September 2015, we predicted that Sri Lanka would not implement it.
When I said during one of the meetings that the present government is a minority government and does not have the two third majority required to amend or introduce a new constitution - the government reply was that they won 165 votes in support of every budget in the past. This shows how they cheat the international community. Voting for a budget and voting for a constitution are not the same. A country’s budget estimates government revenues and expenditures over a specific period of time, whereas an amendment or change to a constitution changes the practices of a country! If the present government wants to see this in action, let them propose a budget giving a good increase in pensions, salaries and other benefits for ex-Presidents, ex-Prime Ministers, Ministers and others. Then they will see their budget supported by everyone, even the so-called joint opposition. My point is that since 1948, all Sri Lankan governments have successfully fooled and cheated Tamils. Now they find a way to fool and cheat the international community. I wish them good luck in their endeavour.
By Fr. Augustine Fernando-April 6, 2017, 9:33 pm
Diocese of Badulla
"We hold the view that the people come first, not the government". John F. Kennedy.
There are individuals and small group of parliamentarians who do not seem to be true and acceptable representatives of the people for whom they have been nominated solely on party leaders’ choice. They disregard the people and plan to impose their views and sabotage the never-to-be-missed opportunity to adopt a New Constitution for Sri Lanka. They prioritize their individual selves under many pretexts. They presume that they, undemocratic, insensitive and short-sighted as they are, are the all-knowing masters and not the servants of the people. These saboteurs should be defeated.
Can we have a constitution to choose non parliamentarians to the cabinet of ministers?
The constitution of Sri Lanka started with the Soulbury Constitution consisting of The Ceylon Independence Act ,and The Ceylon Orders in Council, 1947. It provided for a parliamentary system of government and included a special article(29 {2}) to safeguard the minority rights. In addition to the Parliament there was an Upper house similar to UK , a Senate. Parliament consisted of 101 Members all of whom except 6 to be nominated by the Governor General were elected under universal suffrage. This constitution underwent several changes from time to time but all attempts made by the legislators to revise it to suit the local conditions ended up in failure. The first noteworthy major change to this constitution was effected in 1971 by the abolition of the Senate.
The new Government of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike that was formed as a coalition of all progressive political parties drafted a new constitution by converting the entire parliament into a constituent assembly in 1972, giving birth to a unicameral type of legislature and changing the parliament to a National State Assembly. The name Sri Lanka was substituted in place of Ceylon how our country was then known to the world. Many new features were associated with this change such as the enshrinement of the Fundamental rights as part of the constitution.
This government was defeated in 1977 bringing J.R Jayewardene into office as the Prime Minister of the country with his party the UNP. The controversial constitution which is the center of focus today was brought in by the UNP which enjoyed an unprecedented five sixth parliamentary majority. The Prime Minister became the First Executive President under this constitution. Many opinions were then expressed by opposition politicians and others about the possible dangers that certain provisions of this constitution would bring about in the future. Some declared that the constitution has paved the way for an elected dictatorship. From the many things that transpired and were orchestrated subsequently proved beyond doubt that It created an elected executive having untrammelled power. Due to the way it was formulated it was an impossible task to undo it. It was only a government with by far an absolute majority In parliament that could even bring any amendment to it. The regime that created such a monstrous piece of legislation truly usurped powers under it to prevent any challenge to the hegemony of the UNP for the next seven years. The irony of this exercise was a clear violation of every known norm of democracy in the name of safeguarding democracy. One could see many instances of compromising the integrity of the legislature and the judiciary involved in acts of blatant political victimizations perpetrated during this period.
The government freely used the powers it derived with the five sixth majority in parliament to mend the constitution as and when they desired. An examination of the amendments will clearly establish the purpose such amendments served and for whose benefit. A schedule of the list of amendments made to the constitution since 1978 is produced here separately for the easy reference of the readers. The constitution can be amended by a two thirds majority in parliament with regard to matters that do not require a further approval at a national referendum. The most revolutionary reform to the constitution was brought about under the last amendment , the 19th, which was the result of a promise given by the new President Maithreepala Sirisena as an election promise during his campaign to defeat the then incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa. This amendment involved several favorable and much desired features.
The 18th amendment to the constitution which gave extraordinary powers to the President to contest beyond the accepted two terms period was repealed under the 19th and it also restored several rights under the 17th amendment which remained unfulfilled. This amendment paved the way to the establishment of independent commissions under the provisions of the Constitutional Council. The term of office of the President was reduced to 4 years and removed several articles granting immunity to the President. On the whole the 19th amendment brought many changes by diluting certain excessively harsh powers vested in the executive presidency. It is an irony of history that a parliament which voted for the 18th amendment to increase the draconian powers of the Executive President voting again during the same term to reverse those under a new President! In a 225 member parliament , 215 voted in favor for the 19th amendment on 28th April 2015 with only one member against.
During the Presidential election of 2015 , and the parliament election that followed, many pledges were given by the UNP towards the restoration of democracy and good governance and proposed a new constitution to control the executive powers of the president politically by the parliament. They also proposed to abolish the preferential system of voting and reduce the life of parliament to 5 years. The rights to information and freedom of expression were also among the principal changes envisaged. The 100 days government failed miserably to accomplish the promises given except for certain piece meal changes mainly on the issue of the Presidents prerogative to dissolve the parliament. The proportional representation and the preferential system of voting which were the main expectations of the people happened to stay on as the legislators were unwilling to change. People were desperate to see the dawning a period for selecting those who can be truly called legislators of the country instead of corrupt and unwanted elements who get thrown into the house under the existing system. It was not difficult to understand the ostensible moves under which undesired divisions and differences were created as deliberate sabotage. Those decision makers seem to be more complacent to continue with the nincompoops instead of genuine leaders interested in the future of the country.
In such a context can we believe that the proposed constitutional changes are for the betterment of the country? Or is it a further exercise to guarantee and strengthen the survival of the present clan. Do we see any semblance of a desire to relinquish power or authority in the public interest associated with any of these proposals. Are they genuinely interested in reducing the paid number of Cabinet Ministers? Or are they not there to circumvent any principle to accommodate a super jumbo cabinet in order to remain in power. We must learn to judge the people by their deeds and not by their rhetoric. Therefore the social forces , intellectuals and free thinking people have to start a process of inculcating new thinking in new directions. A way should be shown away from what is shown to us traditionally by the politicians who over a long period of time have taken their turn of the tide, changing from coming in to going out or vice versa. Are any of those who propagate the idea of a new constitution thinking of ways and means of reducing their own power base or their undeterred rights conferred on them to look after themselves above the country’s interests? Is it not what they are doing now? They use the political power to buy over people offering ministerial portfolios. They offer innumerable perks envied by people to themselves in their quest to fulfill their requirements. They fatten their purses well and truly with no pain of mind. Can constitution guarantee good governance? May be they can remove certain draconian interventions. But even under the best of constitution corruption can exist. For good governance, justice and fair play we need good legislators. To select good legislators we have to have a good system in place.
British Tamil students discussed Tamil identity and the experience of growing up Tamil at a panel event hosted by student groups in London.
‘Challenging Tamil Identity in the 21st Century’, a Tamil Students Initiative (TSI) event, organised by member university societies - Kings Tamil Society and Southampton Tamil Society - featured a panel that included Grammy and Oscar-nominated musician M.I.A.
Talking about how their Tamil identity affected their academic, creative and career decisions, were panellists: Dharsha Jegatheeswaran, senior researcher at the Jaffna-based think-tank, Adayaalam; Dr Madurika Rasaratnam, lecturer in international politics at City University and author of ‘Tamils and the Nation’; Dr Lavanya Sankaran, research associate at the School of Education, Communication and Society at King’s College London; and Ragavan Shanmugathas, a musician studying at the Academy of Contemporary Music. The panel was chaired by Tamil Guardian's editor-in-chief, Abinaya Nathan.
Both panellists and audience members contributed to a lively discussion covering broad topics including the social, political and academic implications of bearing a Tamil identity. Conversation included light-hearted and humourous recollections of living with Tamil cultural norms and stereotypes, as well as deeper examinations of the influence the armed struggle has had in creating multiple versions of Tamil identity that are all inherently politicised.
Many students focused on looking to the future, prompting discussions about the Tamil community's development both in the diaspora and in the North-East.
M.I.A. mentioned the various ongoing protests for land-return taking place in the North-East, and suggested that support to establish fundamental rights for Tamils in the homeland, as well as bridging the perceived homeland-diaspora divide was imperative for future progress.
Prof Pratap Bhanu Mehta, an eminent Indian Political scientist shared his insights into incorporating socio-economic rights in the new constitution in Sri Lanka recently. Speaking at a public event organized by Advocata Institute, sponsored by Echelon Magazine, Prof. Mehta spoke about the Indian experience in trying to establish socio-economic rights through the courts. He also touched on whether there is empirical evidence to support the realisation of social and economic rights by embedding them in the constitution.
Contributing to current debates in Sri Lanka around the drafting of a new constitution, Prof. Mehta argues that it’s necessary to go beyond existing ideological and philosophical framing and ask the simple question of what precisely is the problem that constitutionalising socio-economic and cultural rights is meant to solve.
Prof. Mehta says that whilst we may all agree it’s good to have the best possible healthcare, education and other socio-economic factors, we may disagree on what the best institutional architecture is around the delivery of these factors to citizens. The second question, he said, is whether we as a society we’d want to trust judges and the courts over politicians and the democratic process to somehow deliver these rights.
Empirically, according to Prof. Mehta, there is very little evidence to suggest that constitutionalising socio-economic rights make a huge difference to governance or the delivery mechanisms. Speaking about the Indian experience, Prof. Mehta explained that B.R. Ambedkar, the chief framer of the Indian constitution was skeptical about including socio-economic rights. Ambedkar felt given that there is always a wide disagreement in society around economic matters, that the constitution shouldn’t ‘pre-judge’ any of these choices and that the enjoyment of these rights should be left to the give and take of representative politics, subject to iterative learning.
However, since about the 1990’s, Indian courts have taken the provision of ‘right to life’ and broadly interpreted it to include wide socio-economic rights. But such recognition has not resulted in significant improvements within the Indian governance architecture to actually deliver these rights. In fact, it has sometimes had the perverse effect where it has weakened property rights as a result of judicial activism being used by the state to dispossess the poor, more than it has dispossessed the rich.
If the society in Sri Lanka in fact decides that it must have economic and social rights in the constitution, Prof. Mehta noted that it is important to put in place a clear legislative framework that will sit underneath those rights. This must entail establishing the specific national laws and practices in which the rights are supposed to be exercised. It becomes then a conditional right and not an unspecified right.
Otherwise, according to Prof. Mehta, Sri Lanka might end up realising Ambedkar’s worst fears – an economy governed by courts, power taken away from the democratic process and a perverse outcome where ‘rights’ are used to protect the privileged rather than to protect the weak and the vulnerable.
Prof. Mehta’s full remarks are embedded in the video below.
###
Editors note: For related content that looks into the inclusion of socio-economic rights into Sri Lanka’s new constitutions, click here.
Challenging Tamil Identity in the 21st Century’, a Tamil Students Initiative (TSI) event, organised by member university societies - Kings Tamil Society and Southampton Tamil Society - featured a panel that included Grammy and Oscar-nominated musician M.I.A.
