Ryan and McConnell flip-flop on use of force in Syria to deter chemical weapons

“This was a strike that was well-planned, well-executed, went right to the heart of the matter, which is using chemical weapons.”

By Glenn Kessler April 9 at 11:28 AM

— Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), April 7, 2017

“I’ve concluded that being credible on Syria requires presenting a credible response, and having a credible strategy. And for all the reasons I’ve indicated, this proposal just doesn’t pass muster.”
— McConnell, Sept. 10, 2013

“These tactical strikes make it clear that the [Bashar al-Assad] regime can no longer count on American inaction as it carries out atrocities against the Syrian people.”

— House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), April 6, 2017

“The best punishment for Assad’s war crimes is for the moderate elements of the opposition to prevail. But the President’s ill-conceived, half-hearted proposal will do little to help. It will make America look weak, when we need to be strong.”

— Ryan, Sept. 11, 2013

The Republican leaders of the House and the Senate this past week were quick to praise President Trump’s strike on Syria after an apparent chemical weapons attack. But in 2013, when President Barack Obama was weighing a strike, they were opposed.

Trump was opposed to a military strike, as well, but he was a private citizen then, without access to information that congressional leaders presumably would have about the plans contemplated by Obama.

Let’s put this to the flip-flop test.

The Facts

First of all, we have to stipulate that the situations are not necessarily comparable. When Obama contemplated his strikes in 2013, Syria still had a large arsenal of chemical weapons, and the United States was not engaged militarily in Syria.

Today, Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons have been greatly reduced (though clearly not eliminated), with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons overseeing the removal of 1,300 tons of chemical weapons from Syria after Obama struck a deal with Russia that led him to cancel his planned attack. Moreover, the United States strikes military targets in Syria (against territory held by the Islamic State group, also known as ISIL and ISIS) almost daily. Russia entered the civil war, effectively on the side of the Assad government, in 2015.

Trump’s attack was discreet, designed to punish Syria for using chemical weapons by attacking the airport from which an attack was believed to have been launched. His attack took place over one night and involved only cruise missiles. Obama’s planned attack was deeper and broader, designed to last three to four days, using U.S. aircraft.

So the first step in Obama’s plan was take out air defense systems. The U.S. jets would have targeted aircraft used to deliver chemical weapons, as well as chemical weapons units. But at the same time, the plan called for avoiding chemical-weapons storage facilities because of concern about plumes.

The Obama plan “was closer to Operation Desert Fox in 1998,” said Derek Chollet, who at the time was assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and who briefed members of Congress about the Obama plan. (Desert Fox was a four-day campaign launched by President Bill Clinton against Iraqi targets said to house or deliver weapons of mass destruction.) “It was not a pinprick. It would have unfolded over three to four days and was designed to substantially degrade the ability to deliver chemical weapons and also to serve as a deterrence.”

In briefing Congress, Chollet said lawmakers were not given the entire plan, but “it was clear that this was more than a one-off attack.” He added that lawmakers asked many legitimate questions, especially because planners estimated that two-thirds of Syria’s chemical weapons would not be destroyed. So questions were raised about whether the plan would lead to blowback: more chemical-weapons use by Syria, thus requiring another cycle of U.S. attacks. “They did not want to share accountability for what was going to happen in Syria,” he said.

When we contacted Ryan and McConnell’s staffs to understand their change in position, they both pointed to a statement at the time by then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry: that the attack would be an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

As McConnell recalled in remarks to reporters on April 6: “I don’t know whether he had in mind knocking out a tent and a couple of camels or what.”

AshLee Strong, Ryan’s spokeswoman, said, “The Obama administration was promoting what they themselves called an ‘unbelievably small’ action that the speaker and many others believed would not be an effective response to the crisis in Syria. As he said at the time, this minimalist approach would not achieve its objective.”

Kerry’s comment infuriated the White House at the time, and Obama went on national television to assure Americans “the U.S. does not do pinpricks.”

Yet, three years later, Kerry’s flub appears to have defined the Obama plan, so much so that lawmakers now wrongly believe that Trump’s one-night jab with cruise missiles is more robust than what Obama had in mind. As McConnell put it, Trump’s attack was “planned, well-executed, went right to the heart of the matter, which is using chemical weapons. So, had I seen that — that kind of approach by President Obama, I’m sure I would’ve signed up.”

McConnell, in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor in 2013 opposing a military strike, posed a number of tough questions about Obama’s foreign-policy leadership, including noting the fact that Syria already had used chemical weapons on previous occasions and that Obama had failed to act.

“The president’s delayed response was to call for a show of force, for targeted, limited strikes against the regime. We have been told that the purpose of these strikes is to deter and degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons,” he said, appearing to know then that it was more than a one-night attack. But he said it was obvious — even to Obama — that Syria’s use of chemical weapons was not a threat to the vital interests of the United States.

“The president’s proposal seems fundamentally flawed, since if it’s too narrow, it may not deter Assad’s further use of chemical weapons,” McConnell said. “But if it’s too broad, it risks jeopardizing the security of these same stockpiles, potentially putting them into the hands of extremists.”

McConnell added: “Indeed, if through this limited strike the president’s credibility is not restored, because Assad uses chemical weapons again, what then? Add new targets aimed at toppling the regime which end up jeopardizing control of these same chemical weapons stashes — allowing them to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or others intent on using them against the United States or our allies. Where would the cycle of escalation end?” (You can read the full speech here.)

Don Stewart, McConnell’s spokesman, noted that McConnell said on the Senate floor that a follow-up strategy is necessary after Trump’s attack. “In the days ahead, I am committed to working with the administration to continue developing a counter-ISIL strategy that hastens the defeat of ISIL and establishes objectives for dealing with the Assad regime in a manner that preserves the institutions of government in an effort to prevent a failed state,” McConnell said.

Strong, informed of the actual Obama plan, replied: “We’re not going to be able to comment on what President Obama’s classified war plans allegedly included. The fact remains that the chief advocate for President Obama’s proposed strikes considered them unbelievably small and broadcast that to the world. In and of itself, that undermined the deterrent effect of whatever the rest of their plan may or may not have been.”

The Pinocchio Test

Comparisons between two foreign policy challenges can be facile.

Syria in 2013 was a country with large stocks of chemical weapons, so even a three-day attack would have left much of its arsenal in place. Syria in 2017 has vastly fewer chemical weapons, but the civil war has tilted toward the Assad regime, especially after increased involvement of Russia and Iran. Syria also engaged in a chemical weapons attack after having pledged that its weapons had been removed. Trump thus faced a different set of calculations than Obama in contemplating a response.

But these changed circumstances do not excuse the fact that McConnell and Ryan opposed a multiday attack to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile — with McConnell even questioning whether U.S. interests were at stake — while quickly applauding Trump’s attack as robust action demonstrating U.S. leadership. In a bit of revisionist history, officials are now suggesting that they opposed Obama’s plan because it was weaker than Trump’s attack, relying on the Kerry quote to make their case. But the reality is that Trump’s action was more limited than what Obama had contemplated at the time. At the very least, that should be acknowledged before applauding the new commander in chief.

NATO official hopes Serbia-Kosovo tensions will ease after vote

Serbian Prime Minister and President-elect Aleksandar Vucic speaks during his rally in Novi Sad, Serbia, March 18, 2017. Picture taken March 18, 2017. REUTERS/Marko Djurica

By Andrea Shalal | COLOGNE, GERMANY-Sun Apr 9, 2017

The overwhelming victory of Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic in Serbia's presidential election on April 2 could help stabilise the country, a top U.S. and NATO military officer said.

Navy Admiral Michelle Howard, who heads NATO's Allied Joint Force Command in Naples, told Reuters she hoped "engineered provocations" between Kosovo and Serbia in recent months would calm down now that the election was over.

"Now that we're through the election, perhaps the national leaders will refocus on their own countries and govern. That's my hope," Howard, who also commands U.S. naval forces in Europe and Africa, said in an interview late on Saturday after an event hosted by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.

Howard said the region remained an area of concern for the U.S. military and NATO, which still has 4,500 troops in Kosovo after intervening in 1999 to stop Serbia's killings of ethnic Albanian civilians in a counter-insurgency campaign.

She said Vucic, the outgoing prime minister, had run for president on a promise to keep the country moving on a path toward European Union accession, which also required a demonstration of economic stability.

"If he's serious, then I think that is helpful for the country," Howard said. "As you meet all that criteria, I can only imagine that it's helpful for ... establishing stability and security of (Serbia)."

If Vucic makes good his vow to continue moving toward EU membership, then Serbia would remain "balanced between Russian influence and the rest of southeast Europe", Howard said.

Thousands of students and other protesters, who see Vucic as an autocrat, rallied in Belgrade last week to protest at his victory and what they see as a fraudulent election.

Although his new post will be largely ceremonial, Vucic is expected to maintain his grip on power through his Serbian Progressive Party and to continue a balancing act between the West and Russia, a Orthodox Christian and Slavic ally.

Howard said she found it astonishing how tense relations still were between Serbia and the ethnic Albanian-majority government in Kosovo nearly two decades after the war.

Serbia continues to regard Kosovo, which declared independence in 2008, as a renegade province.

"Every time I talk to someone who's from that region, they just remind me that grievances run deep in this part of the world, that the dead get buried but the grievance does not," Howard said. "It's a very complex environment."

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; editing by Mark Heinrich)

Women in politics in UK

by Victor Cherubim- Apr 8, 2017

( April 8, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Pankhurst sisters and the suffragettes liberated the grievances that women were bottling up over centuries and won voting rights in late Victorian Britain. It appears that a century later women’s rights in Britain are still being fought over. In recent years great strides however are surely taking place. Women are now not throwing themselves under horses anymore. They are gaining freedom to express sexuality and reproductive rights, more than handbags and heels. They are taking a lead role in facing injustice, as seen on Twitter. Well, yes quite, within hours after the banned nerve agent sarin gas was used in the Syrian chemical attack on women and children.

In another show of strength we saw the other day, in the candlelight vigil for the Westminster murders, more women seen as charging men everywhere of “the cowardice of the radicalised perpetrator”. In other words the focus of women particularly is not so much on the target’s fear, but on “the charge of defeatism of extremism in the name of religion by men,” a unique way of curbing terrorism and advancing feminism. Many women are not afraid to say that the one main issue facing modern feminism is men?

In simple words the message of women today is: “creeps like you will never get away” thus attempting to negate the validity of radicalism in all its forms, causing injustice, bigotry and instigating violence.

The tactics of the Suffragettes

British suffragettes were mostly women from upper and middle classes, frustrated by their social and economic situation. Hunger strikes, forced feeding, use of colour symbolism in banners and flags –purple for dignity, white for purity and dark chartreuse green for hope – the visibility of women’s marches on the streets – all strived both as rallying points for the women’s movement and a show of diversity of women’s achievements, to obtain the extension of the franchise or the right to vote in public elections.

The dominance of the Boys Club in politics is over

Anger is a legitimate emotion in face of injustice then and now. Women now try the shaming tactic on men to best use by revealing the callous indifference to the “humanity of man”. ”You need to get over your anger at women,” are words not spoken, but demonstrated by the action of almost all women, in different walks of life.

The Old Boys Club that dominated British politics for centuries now don’t speak for men, Could it be dead?

The impressive performance of female politicians to compete with men on equal terms, for influence more than seats, has it appears created smart, tougher women politicians. Most men quietly admit it is a victory for female levelheadedness and generally for common sense.

Women empowered in Parliament and in business

Twenty nine percent or 191 MP’s elected at the last General Election in 2015 are women. Twenty six percent or 211 women are in the House of Lords. Just over one third or 35% are women members of the Scottish Parliament. The key statistic is that British Prime Minister and Scottish First Minister are both women and other women leaders are seen heading business endeavours, besides eight women hold Cabinet rank in UK. This is a staggering feat and a watershed moment in British politics for women.

Liberation of Women

“Legs it not Brexit” was the recent Daily Mail headline that went viral or biological, when a woman Mail columnist named Sarah Vine, intended her story to be light hearted verdict on the “Big Showdown” between two Women Leaders – Prime Minister Theresa May and First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon.

It is not the first time that the Daily Mail has commented about “legs”. We read the comment: “hasn’t she inherited her model mother’s legs.”We now know that it was a well thought out strategy of Downing Street to play down the Scottish request for a Second Referendum, inspired by none other than a former Daily Mail Editor, on the payroll of the British Prime Minister.

What stand out between the two women are their legs, as reported. The Speaker in House of Common always proclaims a successful decision on a parliamentary motion: “The Aye’s have it, the ayes have it.” Here it was “the eye’s have it.” Here it was more than “Legs it “but using innuendo to calm breakup of the Union of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

A new political strategy

Both women may consider their “pins” to be “the finest weapon in their physical arsenal,” Theresa May’s famous long extremities are “somberly arranged.” Sturgeon’s shorter but “undeniably more shapely shanks are altogether more flirty,” according to the Mail.

If liberation of women is judged by their legs, women politicians’ perhaps have shaken minds. Both women arguably are among two of the most accomplished, smart, fearsome women in our galaxy. To the Victorians this photo of women’s legs would be “offensively sexist. Strong women whether in politics or in other walks of life are “stigmatised” labelled as “pushy.” When push comes to shove, the media focuses on the personal grooming and fashion sense of women. Hardly do we hear much about men’s hairy legs? Whether we like it or not, women’s rights have still to be fought and won. Yvette Cooper, a fearless labour MP critic of the Prime Minister tweeted: “two women’s decisions will determine if UK continues to exist”. Downing Street diplomatically refused to be drawn into the row.

China and Burma are pursuing a relationship with mismatched priorities

Aung San Suu Kyi, and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang talk during a signing of agreements ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Pic: AP

By Matthew Abbey | 8th April 2017 | @MatthewAbbey94

ON Thursday, Burma’s President U Htin Kyaw embarked on a trip to China. The two governments will discuss politics and economics throughout the six-day trip, but the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Burma (Myanmar) is unlikely to be prioritised.

China has made clear its foreign policy is limited to protecting national interest. For this reason, Burma must realise that China will not solve its underlying problems. Aung Sung Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of the democratically elected National League for Democracy (NLD), is choosing the wrong partner if she wants to make ending the ongoing conflict her utmost priority.

In typical fashion, the details of the trip will be released at its conclusion, despite both governments knowing what will be discussed and what will be avoided. Unsurprisingly, it’s likely that dams and borders will be prioritised over the ongoing conflict in Burma.

Firstly, there is the US$3.6 billion Myitsone Dam in Kachin State. The former government of Myanmar under President U Thein Sein suspended the construction of the dam in Sept 2011, after an onslaught of public backlash. A committee was tasked with exploring the environmental impact of building future projects on the Irrawaddy River. China has been lobbying to reignite the deal ever since its suspension.

SEE ALSO: Kachin State: Thousands of civilians unable to escape conflict

However, recent sources have claimed that China is willing to consider different economic opportunities in the country, such as smaller hydropower projects and preferential access to the Kyauk Pyu port on the Bay of Bengal.

There is no denying that Burma needs to develop its economy, but the benefits of the projects being pushed by China are controversial in nature. In most cases, they will favour the elite minority of the country. Burma needs foreign investment that leads to higher employment rates, as opposed to foreign investment that provides employment for Chinese citizens.

Secondly, there is the porous border. Fighting in the Kokang region, on the border between China and Burma, continues to worry Beijing. Chinese arms have indirectly ended up in the hands of those taking part in the Kokang rebellion.

SEE ALSO: Rule of law in Burma faces another test as violence rattles northeast 

Refugees flowing into China pose a threat to border security as the region has historically lacked any sense of law and order. China supports the stabilisation the region as evident through its call for a ceasefire by all parties to the conflict. 20,000 people from the Burma side of the border have also fled into China.

But there are scarce reasons for China to become more proactive in supporting the stabilisation of the country as a whole. Once the asylum seekers stop flowing across the border, China will take a step back.

The NLD is pursuing a stronger relationship with China, which it sees as an important ally in the region.

SEE ALSO: China extends reach into Burma’s reclusive Wa state

There is no surprise that Burma favours a shift towards China to decrease its dependence on the United States and the European Union.

China offers a foreign policy based on non-interference into the domestic affairs of its trade partners. But at a time like this, Burma needs the support of the international community to end the ongoing conflict. The interests of both governments in Burma and China stand miles apart.

Firefighters have higher heart attack risk 'because of heat'

Firefighter Simon McNally was 36 when he had a heart attack at work

It is essential that firefighters take time to cool down and rehydrate after tackling a blaze, the British Heart Foundation said.

3 April 2017

Working in high temperatures increases the risk of suffering a heart attack, researchers have said.

The study may explain why heart disease is the leading cause of death among on-duty firefighters, the researchers from the University of Edinburgh said.

Firefighter Simon McNally, who was physically fit, had a heart attack while at work, at the age of 36.

"The doctor said if I'd gone home instead of coming to hospital I probably wouldn't have woken up."

He had been working as an instructor in Essex for three years where he set fires inside a shipping container three or four times a day, and was exposed to temperatures of 600-1,000C.

He was writing a report at his desk when he began to feel unwell.

"I felt a bit uncomfortable, I felt a bit sick. My left arm went numb and I looked at my nails and they'd gone blue and looked really strange and I thought - well, this isn't right. And then I started to be conscious of chest pains."

As their site was remote, he decided to drive to Chelmsford hospital where he was told he was having a heart attack.

"It did come as a bit of a shock. You're in denial as you're a relatively young, fit person so you think this shouldn't be happening to me. You want to get to the hospital for them to tell you that it's not a heart attack, that you've got acid reflux or something like that."

A marathon runner and triathlete, he was transferred to a London hospital after a week where a consultant told him he had a clot in one of his arteries.

He did have one slightly narrow coronary artery but that shouldn't have caused any trouble.

"The consultant said there was a possibility that [the clot] was because my blood had thickened up because of the temperatures I'd been working in."

Sticky blood

The research, funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF), is published in the journal Circulation.

Nineteen non-smoking, healthy firefighters were randomly selected from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to take part in the study.

They took part in exercises, including an attempted mock rescue from a two-storey structure, which exposed them to extremely high temperatures, while wearing heart monitors.

They found their core body temperatures remained high for three to four hours following exposure to the fire.

They also found their blood became stickier and was about 66% more likely to form potentially harmful clots. Their blood vessels also failed to relax in response to medication.

The research team believe that the increase in clotting was caused by a combination of fluid loss due to sweating and an inflammatory response to the fire heat, which resulted in the blood becoming more concentrated and so more likely to clot.

The researchers also found that the exposure to fire caused minor injury to the heart muscles.

Prof Nick Mills, BHF senior clinical research fellow at the University of Edinburgh, who led the research, said: "Studies from the USA have shown that nearly half of all firefighters who die on duty are killed by heart disease.

"Our study has shown a direct link between the heat and physical activity levels encountered by firefighters during the course of their duties and their risk of suffering a heart attack.

"However, we've also found that there are simple measures, such as staying well hydrated, that firefighters can take to reduce this risk."

Warning signs

The Fire Brigades Union has called the findings "very disturbing".

Dave Green, a national officer with the Fire Brigades Union, said: "Although we have known about the increased risks of firefighters having heart attacks on duty or while training for some time, clearly fire service employers now need to urgently start to deal with this issue by ensuring firefighters don't suffer from dehydration or increased core body temperature from working in extreme temperatures for extended periods of time.

"Unfortunately however, cuts to the fire and rescue service mean that finding fresh crews to relieve firefighters who have already worked too long in heat isn't always possible."

Dr Mike Knapton, BHF associate medical director, said: "It's essential that firefighters are aware of this risk and take simple steps such as taking time to cool down and rehydrate after tackling a blaze.

"It's also important for them to be aware of the early warning signs of a heart attack so that, if the worst should happen, they can receive medical attention as soon as possible.

"Most of us will never experience the scorching heat of a blazing inferno, but it's still good general health advice to drink plenty of fluid and take breaks if you're working up a sweat in high temperatures."

Fitness test

Simon McNally was off work for four months and when he went back he was not allowed to go back to hot fire training.

He is still a firefighter and says there is much more awareness now that those working in high temperatures should be drinking plenty of fluids.

But he fears there may be other firefighters who are unaware that they may be vulnerable.

"We have a fitness test every year and a check-up every three years but no-one knows the actual size and make up of their own heart."

Ann Millington, from the National Fire Chiefs Council (formerly Chief Fire Officers Association), said the organisation was "grateful to the Heart Foundation for this research".

"The health and safety of our firefighters is one of our paramount concerns and we will seriously consider the findings and work on ways to mitigate potential harm," she said.

People take to streets against so called ‘superior standard’ Doctor killers..! 3 years old child dies due to neglect (video)

‘May lightning strike these doctors who are vultures ’ parents weep and wail

(Lanka-e-News -08.April.2017, 1.45PM)  A three and half years old child who was admitted with fever to Matara hospital died because no medical treatment was administered to the child for three long hours . A chief doctor of so called ‘superior standard’ at the government  hospital had been idly watching the suffering child from afar and has gone to attend to his private channeling practice neglecting the child.  Later , the child had died  after getting a convulsive fit.

 ‘May lightning strike these ruthless doctors who killed my child’
‘The chief doctor did not even touch my child let alone examine’
‘Such doctors who are enslaved by filthy lucre are of no use  ’  the parents of the child scream while weeping and wailing hitting  their chests and ground. 

Chethuja Dilen Siththaru residing at Hittetiya , Matara was  the child admitted to the Matara General hospital on 2nd April .  Despite the child having fever , no medicine was administered to the child for over 3 hours within the hospital !  

Later because a wrong injection was administered to the child , and the latter died ,  the parents of the victim and residents staged a protest on the 6th blocking the  main gate of the hospital from 9.00 a.m. until about 12.30 p.m.  demanding that the Matara hospital officials shall be brought before the law and duly punished. 

The  government chief  medical officer of the ward , of the so called ‘superior standard’ doctor mafia   had been idly watching the critically sick child from afar like a ghoul waiting for its prey to die to rob and plunder, and then gone to conduct his private practice  most uncaringly.  Despite the junior doctors giving countless calls to him , he had only come after finishing his private channeling , the protestors charged.  The judicial medical officer who did the post mortem  declared the child died due to a wrong injection being administered to the child when  she turned for the worse.

The ruthless inhuman doctors had to enter and leave the hospital on the sly using the rear door like stealing stray dogs which pick up discarded bones and flee, owing to the massive public protest .

Indunil Kelum Jayaweera,  Lanka e news video reporter ,Matara made tremendous efforts to communicate with the Matara hospital director Malkanthi Mediwaka to learn of the situation , but without avail.
 
It is a well and widely known fact , the  country is being plagued by problems created by these demonic , heartless  and devilish  government doctors , and patients are  being held to ransom by the same two legged beasts of doctors . Yet , it is the same ruthless demonic doctors of the GMOA mafia and JVP  affiliated Samastha Lanka medical officers who  are claiming the so called ‘superior  standard’ doctors are in government hospitals , and the Institutions providing private medical education should be closed . What a cruel irony !

Video report – Indunil Kelum Jayaweera , Matara 
Translated by Jeff 

---------------------------
by     (2017-04-08 08:38:15)

January 8th Revolution Betrayed

By Veluppillai Thangavelu –April 8, 2017 

Veluppillai Thangavelu

President Sirisena Is Repudiating His Own Promise Not to Allow the January 8th Revolution Revoked

The curtain fell on United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) 34th sessions on March 24th, 2017. On the previous day the UNHRC adopted a consensus resolution 34/1 on Sri Lanka without a vote. The resolution 34/1 gave Sri Lanka 2 more years to fulfil its commitments for reconciliation and transnational justice.

Resolution 34/1 in effect is a roll-over which asked Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) to implement UNHRC resolution 30/1, and the need for further significant progress. The Council identified many measures that are still outstanding;

Earlier, during the Interactive Dialogue, the High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein expressed concern over Sri Lanka’s slow progress in establishing transitional justice mechanisms to address accountability and emphasized the need of an agreement on a comprehensive strategy, with a time-line and detailed benchmarks, to address all the transitional justice pillars identified in resolution 30/1 of 2015, which was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka, calling for “full implementation”.

Resolution  34/1 requested the Office of the High Commissioner (OHC)  and relevant special procedure mandate holders, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the GoSL, to strengthen their advice and technical assistance on the promotion and protection of human rights and truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.

The resolution also requested the OHC to continue to assess progress on the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant processes related to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, and to present a written update to the Human Rights Council (HRC) at its 37th session, and a comprehensive report, followed by a discussion on the implementation of Council resolution 30/1, at its 40th session. Thus, Sri Lanka has been given a further period of two years to implement resolution 30/1.

Tamil Diaspora groups expressed opposition to give any extension to Sri Lanka, but to refer Sri Lanka to the UN General Assembly/UNSC. Referring Sri Lanka as suggested is not easy. Even if a majority of countries vote for a resolution, it is not binding on the UNSC. The General Assembly has a total of 193 countries and not one member is likely to move a resolution against Sri Lanka.
Further more, if UN Assembly is approached, then the process in UNHRC comes to a halt. The High Commissioner will cease to submit any reports on Sri Lanka as stated in resolution 34/1.  Generally speaking to take a country to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that country must be a global threat to peace and security. Obviously, Sri Lanka is not a country threatening peace and security. The only cases now before the UNSG based on threat to peace and security is Libya and Sudan. North Korea is one country that is issuing threats to neighbouring countries, including US. It is threatening an all out nuclear war with the US and claims its deadly inter-continental missiles can hit US and kill millions. Japan is calling for new laws to allow Tokyo to launch pre-emptive strikes against an increasingly aggressive North Korea.

When the maverick Republican nominee Donald Trump triumphed at the polls to emerge as the US 45 th President many thought he will go easy with troubles in small countries like Sri Lanka. To confirm such speculation President Trump has proposed cutting   funds for   State Department   by  30% while increasing defence spending by another US$ 64 billion taking the total to US$ 610 billion. Second place China’s defence budget is just US$ 216.4 billion.

As soon as Donald Trump won the election, President Maithripala Sirisena told SLFP membership in Galle on November 28, 2016 that he will write to Trump asking his administration to drop the war crime allegations against Sri Lanka. “I will write to President Donald Trump to ask him to free us from these accusations, I was able to save the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and our valiant soldiers by giving the UNHRC the necessary messages.” Sirisena was referring to the leniency shown by the US and the international community after he came to power in January 2015.

July 8, 2016 (Panadura) – President asserts he will not agree to foreign judges

Read More

Political Biographies: JR Jayewardene in 1977 and Ranil Wickremesinghe in 2017 

by Rajan Philips-April 8, 2017, 8:27 pm

"China and India: Their partaking of the world and of Sri Lanka" is the topic I was planning to write on for today, but I could not resist the subject of political biographies after seeing news reports on the ceremonial launch of a new biography of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. Interestingly, India and China figured quite prominently in the ceremony insofar as the main guest speaker, Shashi Tharoor, from Kerala, India, blended his accolades for the Prime Minister with some venting on behalf of Indian businessmen who seem to think that Sri Lanka does not provide a level playing field for foreign investors - with the ground apparently tilted in favour of the Chinese. The very next day, the Prime Minister was again defending how the government is protecting Sri Lanka’s interests in the controversial Hambantota agreement involving a Chinese company. The previous week was all about an upcoming MOU with India on a string of development projects ranging from port and solar power development in Trinco, an LNG power plant and distribution system for Colombo, and a network of roads and highways in the Northern, Eastern and North Central Provinces. In short, the government has nothing much to go for without involving India and China.

China and India are now looming over Sri Lanka in a manner few could have imagined in 1977 when JRJ took power after an electoral sweep and opened doors to robber barons from a different world. Presaging the UNP sweep that year was the release of: "JR Jayewardene of Sri Lanka," a political biography written by TDSA Dissanayake. Forty years later, we have a different biography: "Ranil Wickremesinghe: A Political Biography", written by Dinesh Weerakkody. The contrasts between the characters and circumstances forty years apart cannot be starker, and the urge to comment on them could not be more tempting. China and India are only one aspect of the sea change that has engulfed Sri Lanka over 40 years. Their tentacles are not limited to Sri Lanka but are spreading all over the world, with China outpacing India by quite a margin. China’s global prominence was quite evident in the anticipation over the first meeting, last Thursday, between Chinese President Xi Jinping and the new US President, Donald Trump. Hours after their dinner in Florida, President Trump executed a unilateral act of Tomahawk diplomacy in Syria. What next from Trump? That’s anybody’s guess.

1977 and 2017

To start with political biographies, I have not seen or read the new Wickremesinghe biography but I wrote a review article of the Jayewardene biography in 1977 as one of my regular contributions to Hector Abhayavardhana’s: The Socialist Nation. Still in my twenties and using my then penname, Amali, I wrote with some verve and youthful irreverence; but there must have been something broadly appealing about the piece that it was reproduced in full in SP Amarasingham’s The Tribune. While I cannot say anything about the new biography, there is plenty to say about the politics and the political circumstances of the two biographies written 40 years apart. The 1977 JRJ biography was intended to herald the great victory of JR Jayewardene that everyone knew was coming. Posters appeared throughout December 1976, ostensibly for advertising the book but with a clear political message that went something like: "1977 will bring you JR Jayewardene of Sri Lanka."

I do not want to pour cold water on a new book, but as far as political circumstances go, there is hardly any optimism or enthusiasm today about the future of the present government as there was, in 1977, in the anticipation for a new UNP government led by JR Jayewardene. There is as much enthusiasm in Sri Lankan government circles now as there was in the entire British parliament when Prime Minister Theresa May rose to announce the formal commencement of the Brexit process. It looked more like a wake than the birth of a new country. In any event, it is difficult to imagine the rebirth of a dead empire, karma or no karma. In fact, there is much more gung ho among some Sri Lankan commentators about Brexit, and other exits, than there is excitement even among Brexit supporters in England.

JR Jayewardene was about the same age in 1977 as Ranil Wickremesinghe and Mahinda Rajapaksa are today. Other contenders today are a little younger. Although he was considered old then, politically JRJ was and acted much younger in contrast to today’s political leaders. When his biography appeared, JRJ was at the cusp of a historic political achievement for himself, and for his Party. Never before had the UNP won so ‘bigly’ to use Donald Trump’s memorable addition to American political vocabulary. Nor would it ever win such a landslide again.

And no government has altered the political, constitutional and the economic landscapes of the country, for better and for worse, as did the Jayewardene government of 1977.The paradoxical difference between 1977 and 2017 is the role reversal of the UNP and SLFP in regard to JRJ’s political and constitutional legacies. The SLFP that opposed the presidential system now wants to preserve it, whereas the UNP that created it now wants to get rid of it.

The main premise of JRJ’s victory and the major area of change was the economy. The people by and large were tired of the scarcities of life that they had to endure in the name of socialism. There was a thirst for change and JRJ opened the taps fully but did not do quite as much to upgrade the country’s outdated plumbing. The leaks and systemic inefficiencies have now reached crisis proportions, but the present government is under the illusion that a suite of free trade deals will somehow compensate for all the internal weaknesses. There is a parallel to the 1977 government’s emphasis on mega projects predicated on the Mahaweli River and its tributaries, in the new emphasis on coastal and urban development projects. But the ‘terrains’ are quite different and the intended results of port and urban development projects are likely to be less positive, and unintended consequences more negative, than in any of the Mahaweli projects.

The elephant in the room then and now is not the UNP elephant, but the Tamil question. The metastasis of the Tamil question, or the national question, began in 1977, and after decades of trying through war and other means, the question is still in need of answers but now more as a postwar war problem than what it used to be as a prewar problem. But all attempts at answers must come to terms with yet another legacy of President Jayewardene, namely, the 13th Amendment. In writing it into the constitution, JRJ accomplished something no other Sri Lankan leader has been able to achieve. The man, who publicly protested against SWRD Bandaranaike’s pact with SJV Chelvanayakam, was known to have been privately critical of the then Prime Minister for caving into pressure in abrogating the BC Pact. When it was his turn, JRJ did not cave in. This is by no means an endorsement of JRJ’s politics and his legacies, but only a comparison of his character to those of other political leaders then and now.

JR Jayewardene really did not need a biography in 1977 to presage his presidency. And he lived to see his life and career written into more scholarly history by two admiring academics, in two volumes. It is early to say what the new political biography of Ranil Wickremesinghe is going to do to bolster the political fortunes of the Prime Minister, his Party and the National Unity government he co-leads with President Sirisena. President Sirisena was in attendance at the book-launch ceremony. Of course! There is apparently more tension in the government than what meets the eye in formal ceremonies. Together, the President and Prime Minister need more than a biography to get along and turn things around.