Brexit or Breakup?

By CARL BILDT-MAY 16, 2017

STOCKHOLM – Even after abandoning its empire, the United Kingdom hesitated for decades to join Europe. But it eventually did, and in the past half-century it became a proponent of European Union enlargement, and a champion of key EU policies such as the single market.

But soon it will be one year since the UK decided, by a slim majority, to leave all of that behind. In the past 11 months, we have been told repeatedly that “Brexit means Brexit” – a phrase that leaves one none the wiser as to what Brexit actually means. But now that the UK has invoked Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, the fog has started to lift. The UK has clarified some of its objectives for leaving the bloc, and we can begin to get a sense of how the process will play out over the next few years.

For starters, we know that the divorce will not be easy. Rather than pursuing a Norway- or Turkey-style arrangement, in which the UK would maintain some access to the single market or customs union, British Prime Minister Theresa May has opted for a “hard Brexit.” She has made it clear that controlling immigration and leaving the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction are her primary objectives. And with her Conservative Party poised to win a solid majority in the general election on June 8, the UK will almost certainly stay this course.

In its negotiations with the EU, May’s government will want to discuss a new UK-EU partnership alongside the terms of the divorce. But, so far, the European Council has furnished its chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, with a mandate only for the divorce stage of the process. It will not expand that mandate to include talks on a future UK-EU partnership until the first stage nears completion.

Moreover, the remaining 27 EU member states’ finance ministries are demanding that the UK settle its financial obligations to the bloc, lest they get saddled with the UK’s bill. There will be haggling over what the UK owes; but, as a matter of principle, the EU can hardly budge much on this issue.

Thus, one can be virtually certain that the UK will formally leave the EU by the end of March 2019, and that it will not have a final agreement on a new partnership in hand. Barring a separate agreement on some kind of transitional arrangement, the UK could be heading for a brutal exit: new tariffs, severed institutional relationships, and diplomatic tensions.

On the other hand, with such an agreement, the UK could leave with a reasonable divorce settlement that includes guiding principles for a new UK-EU partnership, to be discussed in another round of negotiations. Assuming good will on both sides, such negotiations could possibly be concluded by 2022.

Any new partnership that emerges will most likely resemble the arrangement between Ukraine and the EU: something like the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, along with additional agreements covering complicated sectors such as transportation and agriculture. But while the DCFTA was a boon to Ukraine’s economy, a similar deal for the UK would represent a huge step backwards, not least because it would require a new border regime that would disrupt the integrated value chains on which many UK firms depend.

The UK will also have to establish a number of new agencies for regulatory issues that are currently being overseen by the EU, such as nuclear safety, pharmaceutical testing, aviation, and food standards. And, given that one of the UK’s top priorities will be to maintain its economic relationship with the EU – no other relationship is as important – whatever new agencies it creates will have to uphold the standards that the EU will demand. Beyond that, the UK will also have to pursue individual arrangements with all of the non-EU countries that are a party to any of the Union’s 48 trade agreements with the outside world.

There was once much talk about a post-Brexit free-trade deal between the United States and Britain. But enthusiasm has waned, and one now hears talk of the UK joining some kind of US-EU trade deal at a later date.

Another priority on the negotiating agenda will be the nearly five million EU citizens who have suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of the new divide, and whose immediate rights and future prospects will need to be addressed. Most of these people are in the UK, and most of them make important contributions to the UK’s economy. For example, Barclays Bank alone employs 3,000 citizens from other EU countries.

The devil will be in the details. The May government insists that it wants to control immigration, but no one really wants to see new visa barriers in Europe. Either way, many companies will have to start making adjustments, especially in the automobile and aerospace industries, which are highly integrated across borders. In fact, Lloyds of London is already establishing operations within the EU; and Goldman Sachs has announced that it is relocating some jobs away from London.

I sincerely hope that a brutal exit in the spring of 2019 can be avoided, and that the “deep and special partnership” that the UK talks about will materialize by, say, the spring of 2021. But, after some rather acrimonious conversations in recent weeks, one cannot be confident that either outcome will come to pass.

As for the remaining EU member states, we should not lose sight of the fact that we need one another. In a couple of decades, we will constitute no more than 4% of the global population. The EU – with a renewed Franco-German axis at its core – will have to deal with its many other challenges, and chart its own future.

The same goes for the UK, which must decide if it still wants to be a part of Europe, albeit outside of the EU; or whether Brexit actually means Breakup.

The Conservative manifesto – the big questions

Do the numbers add up?

18 MAY 2017

The Conservatives have promised to spend more money on the NHS and build more social housing, amongst other things, while not raising income tax.

They say they will increase government revenue by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, introducing means testing for winter fuel payments and tightening the rules on who pays for residential care for the elderly.

But there is no balance sheet that tells us how all this is supposed to add up.

When Labour unveiled their manifesto this week, they published a costings document alongside it.

FactCheck cast doubt on some of Labour’s numbers, but the Conservatives haven’t even come up with a set of figures.

That makes it hard for us – and voters – to see how they are going to pay for all these promises.

Will there really be £8bn extra for the NHS?

The Conservatives say they will “increase NHS spending by a minimum of £8 billion in real terms over the next five years”.

There will be a big debate in the coming days about how generous that is.

The Health Foundation charity calculates that the Conservative offer would mean NHS spending per person not falling in real terms in the next two years, but say it would still fall as a percentage of GDP.

But there’s a more basic problem: the Conservatives have made promises like this before, only to be accused of fiddling the figures.

Last year Theresa May repeatedly claimed that the Tories were pumping £10bn a year more into the NHS.

This claim only stood up if you included a spending rise that had already been announced, and ignored the fact that other parts of the health budget were being cut at the same time.

The government was criticised for spinning the numbers by the health select committee, the NHS Confederation, the British Medical Association and the UK Statistics Authority.

Are they trying to pull a fast one again? We’ve reached out to the Conservatives, but haven’t had a reply yet. We’ll update if we get one.

Will they really cut immigration?

The Conservatives have restated their pledge to cut immigration to the tens of thousands – a commitment that successive Tory administrations have failed to make happen.

It’s not clear how Theresa May will keep this promise, if elected. She won’t be able to make changes which contradict the principle of the free movement of EU citizens until after Britain leaves the EU in 2019.

One thing announced today is a plan to double the amount UK businesses have to pay the government when they hire skilled non-EU migrant workers.

The Immigration Skills Charge, announced in 2015 by the Cameron government, took effect in April 2017.

UK businesses have to pay £1,000 for each skilled worker they hire from outside the EU. For every six months after that, the company pays £500, rising to £5,000 for five years of employment.

The stated intention is to “reduce demand for migrant labour and make sure British people have the right skills to fill jobs”.

That sounds like the idea is to a) cut immigration and b) use money raised to increase British workers’ skills. But we don’t know yet if either of these things is really happening.

The policy only came into force last month, so we don’t know if it’s had any effect at all on migrant numbers. But that hasn’t stopped Theresa May and team announcing today that the current charge doesn’t go far enough, and must be doubled.

There’s also no way of knowing if immigration will fall. The Tories’ rationale seems to be that if you make an overseas worker £2,000 more expensive than their UK counterpart, you’ll discourage firms from employing the foreign candidate.

“Tier 2” jobs subject to the Immigration Skills Charge include dancers (ballet and non-ballet, as apparently that’s an important distinction here), people working in film and TV, town planning technicians, company chief executives, and marketing directors.

Would the English National Ballet turn away Cuban dancing virtuoso Carlos Acosta on the basis that the government has asked for an extra £1,000? Would the board of a FTSE 100 company turn down a prospective Chief Executive because she happens to hail from outside the EU?

Has there been any effect on business behaviour at all? How much money has been raised? Has it been spent on up-skilling Brits? We don’t know.

And if there’s no data, it makes it hard to say whether doubling the charge is a good idea or not.

Will pension spending fall?

We’ve seen commentators on Twitter today complaining that the “state pension will be cut”. But that’s not strictly accurate.

At the moment the government guarantees that the state pension will rise by either earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent – whichever is the highest.

The Tories aim to downgrade this “triple lock” guarantee to a double lock – pensions will only track earnings or inflation.

The change will only happen in 2020, and there’s no guarantee that OAPs will lose out.

At the moment, inflation is running at 2.7 per cent, so if the triple lock were dropped overnight, nobody would see their pension downrated.

Today the Institute for Fiscal Studies published projections suggesting that the change might have little effect on future public finances: state pension spending in fifty years time is only 0.2 per cent of national income lower under the double lock.

This poses an interesting question: why would the Conservatives run the risk of annoying older voters by tinkering with the system, if it’s not going to save much money?

Perhaps they judge that the so-called “grey vote” is already in the bag. After all, the biggest swing from Tories to Labour at the last election was among over-65s, and recent polling suggests pensioners prefer Theresa May to Jeremy Corbyn.

By Georgina Lee and Patrick Worrall

Trudeau promotes Canadian tech, lures foreign investment at Microsoft summit

Wednesday, May 17

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Washington state Wednesday to promote Canada’s growing technology industry to major multinational companies, joining top business leaders inside the closed-door Microsoft CEO Summit.

Trudeau’s visit comes as U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration poses both challenges and opportunities for Canada’s high-tech industry. Trump’s “America First” rhetoric and his plans to slash corporate taxes could mean more investment flows south of the border, but his restrictive approach to immigration could draw talent north, experts said.

Trudeau is the first sitting head of government or state to be invited to address the summit, his office said.

“The prime minister’s participation in the summit is an important opportunity to encourage innovation, promote investment in the technology sector, and draw global talent to Canada,” said press secretary Andree-Lyne Halle in a statement.

“The PM will showcase Canada’s skilled, hard-working, creative, and diverse workforce.”

The summit, under the theme “The CEO Agenda: Navigating Change,” brought more than 140 executives to Microsoft’s sprawling headquarters in Redmond, just outside Seattle. The annual gathering is closed to the public and the conference centre was surrounded by security guards, black vehicles and armed police officers.

A handful of Microsoft employees gathered outside to sneak a peek at Trudeau, including Twisha, a 31-year-old trade manager who is originally from India and does not have a surname.

“I love him. He’s really cute,” she said with a laugh.

“He’s amazing, he’s liberal, he’s modern, he’s a feminist. I guess he ticks all the right boxes for me.”

Dave Ebb, a Winnipeg-born Microsoft employee, said while he was passing by the building that he was excited the prime minister was visiting. He said it would be great for Canada to have more investment in its technology sector.

“I love being Canadian, but the stuff we’re working on here is so cool,” he said.

Microsoft declined to make a representative available for an interview. Trudeau has no media availability other than a photo opportunity prior to a meeting with Washington Gov. Jay Inslee on Thursday.

Werner Antweiler, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business, said the prime minister’s main goal at the summit should be to “put Canada on the map.”

Trudeau needs to promote Canada’s standard of living and ease of immigration, qualities that make the country an attractive place for global talent as well as investment, Antweiler said.

After Trump signed an executive order barring citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries in January, dozens of Canada’s technology CEOs signed a letter asking the federal government to offer immediate entry visas to those affected. The American order was struck down by the courts and a second, similar order is now being challenged.

“Trump says ‘America First’ but then he’s putting America last when it comes to attracting talent from abroad,” said Antweiler.

“A lot of people from Europe, from Asia, from the Middle East, are going to look at the United States and say, ‘Well, wait a minute, am I feeling comfortable moving there when there is a government that is quite hostile to certain types of immigration?’ ”

Paul Preston, director of science, technology and innovation policy at the Conference Board of Canada, said in order to attract more global investment, Canada must give incentives to its businesses to spend more on research and development.

“Compared to other developed nations, we spend a lot less,” he said. “The more we can continue to attract investment from other places around the world and encourage our businesses to spend on R&D, then we’ll start to push the envelope and create more globally competitive ideas and companies.”

Namir Anani, CEO of the Information and Communications Technology Council, said attracting international companies to Canada not only creates jobs but creates the ecosystem for future entrepreneurs to connect with local markets.

For example, General Motors added 1,000 jobs in Oshawa to create autonomous cars, allowing an entrepreneur developing an innovative battery system the opportunity to pitch to GM and access international markets, he said.

Benjamin Bergen, executive director of the Council of Canadian Innovators, said his industry group’s focus was making sure that domestic companies can scale up and grow in Canada.

“If foreign investment dollars are flowing, let’s make sure that our domestic firms are still able to hire talent here in Canada as well and be able to compete with multinationals.”

House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump

The Post’s Adam Entous discusses a 2016 conversation of GOP leaders in which House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made an explosive claim. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post) 

By Adam Entous May 17 at 8:16 PM

The Post’s Adam Entous discusses a 2016 conversation of GOP leaders in which House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made an explosive claim. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

KIEV, Ukraine — A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

House majority leader to colleagues in 2016.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Colombia’s Tenuous Peace Needs U.S. Support

BY DANIEL KURTZ-PHELAN, DAN RESTREPO-MAY 17, 2017

One of President Donald Trump’s highest-stakes foreign-policy encounters this week is one few people in Washington have paid any attention to. On Thursday, Colombia’s president, Juan Manuel Santos, is set to arrive at the White House for his first meeting with his new U.S. counterpart. Amid everything else happening — ongoing fallout from Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey’s firing, reports of Trump sharing code-word intelligence with the Russian foreign minister, the start of Trumps nine-day, four-country, three-great-religions trip to the Middle East and Europe — a discussion with a Latin American head of state may seem inconsequential. But with the future of Colombia’s peace in question, the stakes — whether one of the rare bipartisan successes of recent U.S. foreign policy is squandered or sustained — are in fact enormous.

Through three administrations in Washington and three in Bogotá, the United States has played a key role in catalyzing and supporting Colombia’s return from state collapse. In the 1990s, drug-trafficking, left-wing insurgents controlled a swathe of territory the size of Switzerland. Right-wing paramilitaries, equally vicious and criminal, dominated major cities and agricultural regions. Today, despite ongoing challenges, Colombia is a different place. Thanks to a peace deal that Santos signed with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, last year, thousands of rebels are coming in from the mountains and jungles and starting their reintegration into Colombian society. (Washington, Havana, and the Vatican backed the deal, and Santos won the 2016 Noble Peace Prize for his leadership in bringing the longest-running armed conflict in the Americas to an end.) Colombia now has the fourth-largest economy in Latin America — and one of few with which the United States has a trade surplus — and is poised to become a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The most important factor behind this transformation has been the will and commitment of the Colombian people, who backed an effective mix of military, economic, and political measures year after year. But U.S. support — since 2000, $10 billion under Plan Colombia — has also been critical.

That total may sound large, but it is little next to the cost of a single year in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Colombian government outspent the United States by nearly 10 to 1, an unmatched ratio for recipients of significant U.S. security and development assistance. To put it in terms Trump might understand: U.S. support for Colombia has brought a remarkable return on investment. For the first time in many decades, we are living in a hemisphere free of war. Colombia has gone from Latin America’s most prolific exporter of instability and criminality to a capable and reliable partner, working with the United States on everything from addressing citizen security in Central America to combating climate change.

In March of last year, President Barack Obama and Santos announced the next stage in the U.S.-Colombia partnership: Peace Colombia. Obama committed some $500 million a year over five years to support Colombia’s landmark peace agreement, helping lock in the advances of the previous decade and a half. And Congress approved nearly all of the $450 million in initial support for Peace Colombia in the Obama administration’s final budget request.

What the Trump administration does now could help sustain Colombia’s progress toward peace — or catastrophically undermine it. The administration has signaled that it is reviewing American support, and suggested that it may cut assistance considerably, in keeping with its general evisceration of diplomatic and development efforts around the world. In April, an unannounced encounter at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida between the U.S. president and two former Colombian presidents who oppose the agreement with the FARC, Andrés Pastrana Arango and Álvaro Uribe, heightened fears that the administration would reverse U.S. policy and end U.S. support for Colombia’s peace.

That is the danger Santos will be trying to avert when he comes to Washington this week. He began making his case in a February call with Trump. (In response, according to Colombian officials, Trump talked about the Colombian materials used in his buildings.) Last month, Congress maintained assistance for Peace Colombia in its bipartisan budget deal, a signal of enduring support for the longstanding U.S.-Colombian partnership in Washington. But Trump’s standard “America First” rhetoric cuts against these efforts, showing little concern about abandoning U.S. partners to fend for themselves, even when doing so would make the United States considerably less safe. This week, if Trump fails to make a clear commitment to Santos — rethinking, in the process, his knee-jerk, self-defeating cuts to the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development programs — he will yet again undermine U.S. national security in his retreat from the world.

Colombia’s success, while remarkable, is not irreversible. The government has been absent from huge expanses of its territory for decades, and the challenges of delivering governance, social services, and economic opportunity will be immense. It has so far struggled with execution of the peace agreement, faltering on key steps such as readying demobilization sites and putting international representatives in place to claim surrendered weapons. Even with the FARC laying down its guns, there are a host of other armed criminal groups eager to fill the vacuum and take over the drug trade. After years of decreases, cocaine production is now on the rise. And last year’s initial defeat of the peace deal in a public referendum, before a revised version was approved by Colombia’s Congress, underscored the polarization and political tension that will only grow ahead of next year’s presidential and legislative elections. If violence increases or the deal appears to be faltering, voters and candidates could quickly turn against Santos and his peace.

“I’m not like Obama,” Trump likes to say in touting foreign-policy decisions. He seems to count apparent divergence from the approach of his predecessor as the best argument for his policies. But in this case, ending support for Colombia’s peace will squander an achievement not just of the Obama administration, but also of Republican and Democratic administrations that went before.

Photo credit: FARC guerrillas in Pondores, La Guajira, Colombia on April 3, 2017.  JOAQUIN SARMIENTO/AFP/Getty Images

Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

Cores drilled from three islands just off the Antarctic Peninsula reveal that the warming climate has spurred on biological activity. Photograph: Matt Amesbury

Nicola Davis-Thursday 18 May 2017

Antarctica may conjure up an image of a pristine white landscape, but researchers say climate change is turning the continent green.

Scientists studying banks of moss in Antarctica have found that the quantity of moss, and the rate of plant growth, has shot up in the past 50 years, suggesting the continent may have a verdant future.

“Antarctica is not going to become entirely green, but it will become more green than it currently is,” said Matt Amesbury, co-author of the research from the University of Exeter. 

“This is linking into other processes that are happening on the Antarctic Peninsula at the moment, particularly things like glacier retreat which are freeing up new areas of ice-free land – and the mosses particularly are very effective colonisers of those new areas,” he added. 

In the second half of the 20th century, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced rapid temperature increases, warming by about half a degree per decade. 

Plant life on Antarctica is scarce, existing on only 0.3% of the continent, but moss, well preserved in chilly sediments, offers scientists a way of exploring how plants have responded to such changes. 

Writing in the journal Current Biology, scientists from three British universities and the British Antarctic Survey describe how they gathered data from five vertical columns of sediments, or cores, drilled from three islands just off the Antarctic Peninsula – the northernmost part of Antarctica that reaches out towards south America.

The team then analysed the cores, examining the top 20cm of each to allow the scientists to look back over 150 years and explore changes over time across a number of factors. These included the amount of moss, its rate of growth, the size of populations of microbes and a ratio of different forms, or isotopes, of carbon in the plants that indicates how favourable conditions were for photosynthesis at a particular point in time.

The cores reveal that the warming climate of Antarctica in the past 50 years has spurred on biological activity: the rate of moss growth is now four to five times higher than it was pre-1950.

 A moss bank on Green Island Photograph: Matt Amesbury

The results echo findings reported by the team in 2013 based on cores from the southernmost known moss bank, found on Alexander Island to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula.

“Because we have got this wide transect now and all of the [sites examined] are showing the same response, consistently over that 1,000km transect, that makes us much more confident that it is a response to temperature change,” said Amesbury.

Taken together, the team say the results show that moss banks across the region are responding to warming, adding that variations in the measure of favourability for photosynthesis between sites is likely down to local differences in moisture levels. “Temperature change also drives other things, so earlier spring melt, for example, is one, longer growing season is another – all of those things will have more local effects on each individual site,” said Amesbury.

The team also used models to explore what the future might hold for the continent, taking into account recent research that has suggested that the peninsula has cooled, albeit temporarily, in recent years as a result of changes in wind patterns. 

The results suggest that even modest future warming could lead to further, rapid changes in Antarctica’s ecosystems. What’s more, the scientists warn that greening, together with increases in the number of visitors to Antarctica, could make it easier for invasive species to colonise the continent.

“The likelihood of this happening is very much an uncertainty, but remains a very real possibility, which is understandably concerning,” said Thomas Roland, a co-author of the study also from the University of Exeter. “Should this occur, it would further transform the face of this remote, largely pristine and very iconic region.”

Mullaitivu court serves stay order banning Mullivaikkaal commemoration

17 May  2017

The Mullaitivu magistrates court has served a stay order banning Mullivaikkaal commemorations planned for May 18th by Tamil civil society members.

The court order applied for by Mullaitivu police stated that “holding the event at the specified location will threaten the country’s unity, national security, calm and peace.”

The order was received while preparations for the memorial were taking place in Mullivaikkaal. The activities included displaying stones carved with the names of dead victims.

Before the order was officially served, Sri Lankan police attended the site.

"They got off their vehicle and said they were here for our protection and to protect the monument," a volunteer at the site told Tamil Guardian.

Later a few organisers were told to come opposite the district secretariat and were handed the stay order in the street.

Yesterday, two individuals involved were summoned and interrogated on the commemorations by Mullaitivu police and others involved had reported repeated harassment from military officials.

Earlier in the week a Sri Lankan minister was reported to have made veiled threats to Tamils holding remembrance events saying he would not let anyone discredit the security forces.

“We would like to spend at least a few days with our children before we die”

May 17, 2017

On the eve of the eighth anniversary of war’s end in Sri Lanka, we publish below a letter from mothers of the disappeared of Kilinochchi who continue to seek answers as to the whereabouts of their loved ones. Full versions of the respective letters to Secretary-General António Guterres and Prime Minister Theresa May, can be found here and here.

15th May 2017

Your Excellency António Guterres, The Rt Hon Theresa May,

We mothers belong to the Association for the Relatives of the Enforced Disappeared in the District of Kilinochchi in northern Sri Lanka. For three long months we have been continuously staging protests by the roadside to draw the world’s attention to our agonizing plight. We just want to know what happened to our beloved sons and daughters, our husbands and wives and our grandchildren who have disappeared. After eight years we need the truth but the Government of Sri Lanka, which claims to believe in transitional justice, has ignored us, trampled on our feelings and shown us nothing but disrespect. Basic human dignity means we should be heard.

In our small district alone there are at least 1,200 people who disappeared at the end of the civil war in 2009. This figure includes those who surrendered to the army and those who were identified as suspects while in custody and taken away. Some were abducted before and after the end of the war; others surrendered in an orderly fashion under the protection of a Catholic priest on the last day of the war, but the priest, Father Francis Joseph, and the people with him have all disappeared without trace, including several young children from our families.

We started this protest to hold the Sri Lankan Government accountable for its actions in the final phase of the civil war in 2008-9.

Also we wanted to know the names of all those held in secret torture camps. Some of us have compelling evidence to prove  that our children have been kept in secret camps by the Sri Lankan armed forces.

Specifically we ask your help in securing from the Sri Lankan Government the release of the names of:

(a) all those who are still in their custody today and

(b) all those who were in their custody.

Although more than 80 days have already passed since we began our protest, no one from the Government has visited us or shown any interest in knowing our demands.

Our members are already badly affected physically and psychologically by the disappearance of their loved ones, and are becoming weaker and weaker. No one from the iNGOs,  or the Government or the International Community has responded to our plea.

We would like to spend at least a few days with our children before we die.

Truly Yours,

The Mothers of the Disappeared, Kilinochchi, Sri Lanka.

BBS discusses communal reconciliation with Mano Ganesan 

By Chamodi Gunawardana-Thursday, 18 May 2017

Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) General Secretary Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero met Minister of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official Languages Mano Ganesan yesterday to discuss reconciliation between all communities of the country.

Gnanasara Thero has stressed the importance of harmonious relations among all ethnicities and religions, especially between the Sinhalese and Tamils since the country was in a post-war period.

Referring to a number of incidents during the recent past which caused a gulf between the Sinhalese and Tamil, Gnanasara Thero highlighted that as the Minister of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official Languages, Ganesan should take steps to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.

Speaking after the discussion, Minister Ganesan said that he already has a sound idea about his responsibilities as the Minister of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official Languages and needed no reminders.

Ganesan said he had already taken actions to avoid incidents which spread communal disharmony as the Minister and would continue his work.

He also said as being a Sinhala-speaking Tamil politician he could be a role model to the public to showcase the unity of the country.

Ganesan added that even though he belonged to a different nationality, he believed that the priority given to Buddhism by the Constitution should remain unchanged.

A day before the discussion with the Minister, Gnanasara Thero had stated that Ganesan was unsuitable for the position of Minister of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official Languages since he had not taken any action to build unity among communities.

Responding to that, Ganesan said that no one could decide whether he was unsuitable for the position except President Maithripala Sirisena since he had the ultimate power to appoint or dismiss any Minister.

அமைச்சர் மனோவின் அலுவலகத்தில் ஞானசார தேரர் அட்டகாசம்

 May 17, 2017

இது சிங்களவர்களின் நாடு அதனை முதலில் தெரிந்து கொள்ளுங்கள் : அமைச்சர் மனோவிடம் அதிகார தொனியில் இனவாதமாக பேசிய ஞானசார : தகாத வார்த்தைகளும் பாவிப்பு (Video)

Read More

Sri Lanka: Emergence Of Startling Evidence Of A Failed State

By Nagananda Kodituwakku –MAY 17, 2017

Nagananda Kodituwakku

In the Republic of Sri Lanka, the Supreme Law, the Constitution, says that every person is equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law [Article 12 (1)]

This means that the application of uniform approach for offenders who commit criminal offences where the characteristics of the offence is the same or identical. Application of this uniformity principle is of paramount important in any democracy to have people’s confidence in the criminal justice system.

The revenue protection laws in Sri Lanka, for instance the Customs ordinance, provide severe penalties and forfeitures (treble the value) for offenders concerned in revenue crimes. These laws have been enacted to deter or prevent the commission of revenue crimes and to protect the important government revenue that the Customs Department collects for the state, which is now stands at 60% of the government’s total tax revenue.

In addition, there are other important laws in place to deter the people who abuse public office causing losses to the government. For instance the relatively new criminal offence of CORRUPTION introduced through the Bribery Act, provides that any person abuse public office holds purely on trust causing a loss to the government or commits an act to benefit or favor for himself or other commits an offence of Corruption [Section 70].

Selling of MP tax-free car permit is obviously a measure introduced by the successive corrupt governments that abused the people’s sovereignty to facilitate the MPs to defraud the public funds. This is the hard fact acknowledged by the Minister of Finance Ravi Karunanayake himself in his maiden budget speech delivered in the Parliament on 20th Nov 2015, where he revealed that the government incur over 40 billions of revenue loss due to the abuse of these tax-free permits.

It is a proven fact that every dishonest MP who sells a tax-free permit for unjust enrichment (see the list attached) does have the knowledge that the buyers (who are not entitled to enjoy this tax-free permits issued only to MPs in the public interest to import a vehicle to discharge their office effectively) would abuse the permit to defraud the government revenue.

Now you are invited to examine the content of the letter originated by the CIABOC (in reply to the complaint made on the abuse of tax free car permits by the MPs) to judge for yourselves about the emergence of startling evidence of a failed state, where the Rule of Law has been completely undermined by the very state organ created for combatting of bribery and corruption, effectively riddling the public confidence in the criminal justice system.

In this background it is inevitable that people will continue to make serious complaints to the Human Rights Body in Geneva that they have no confidence and lost their trust in the main organs of the government, particularly those who hold office in the Executive and the Legislature as they openly violate their constitutional pledge made to the people to perform the offices they hold faithfully, according to the Constitution and the Law.

Read More