Iran election: Millions vote in close race for presidency

Result could decide whether Iran's detente with the West continues

Iranian women cast their ballots for the presidential elections at a polling station north of Tehran on 19 May 2017 (AFP)---Ali Akbar Nategh-Nouri casts his vote into a ballot box during the presidential election in Tehran (Reuters)

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani cats his vote during the presidential election in Tehran (Reuters)

Friday 19 May 2017

Iranians voted in fiercely-contested presidential polls on Friday, standing in long lines to choose between Hassan Rouhani, the incumbent who wants normal ties with the West, and a conservative challenger backed by powerful security hawks.

In Tehran Rouhani, a 68-year-old moderate cleric, was mobbed by cheering supporters as he cast his ballot in a mosque.

"Everyone should vote in this important election... the country's fate is determined by the people," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, casting his ballot in Tehran as lengthy queues formed across the country of 80 million.

In a warning reflecting rising political tensions amid signs of an unexpectedly close race, Rouhani has urged Iran's powerful elite Revolutionary Guards, believed to support his opponent Ebrahim Raisi, not to meddle in the vote.

Suspicions that the guards and the Basij militia under their control falsified voting results in favour of hardline populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad led to eight months of nationwide protests in 2009. Dozens of people were killed and hundreds arrested, human rights groups say, in the worst unrest to hit the Islamic Republic.

"I am on my way to vote for Rouhani. I like his detente policy with the world. I know he is not a reformist but who cares. What matters is that he is not Raisi," government employee Yousef Ghaemi, 43, said by phone from the western city of Kermanshah.

"I cast my vote already - I voted for Raisi because he is a follower of Imam Khamenei. He will not confront the leader (Khamenei) if elected. He will protect our Islamic identity," said Mehran Fardoust, 36, a shopkeeper near the Imam Reza Shrine, in the holy city of Mashhad, Raisi's hometown.

Oscar-winning director Asghar Farhadi, a vocal Rouhani supporter, cast his vote at a polling station in Cannes, France where he was attending the film festival. 

Raisi, 56, and Rouhani, 68, traded charges of graft and brutality on television debates with an open vehemence unseen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Both deny the other's accusations.

State television showed lengthy queues forming outside polling stations in several cities and said 56 million Iranians out of the more than 80-million-strong population were eligible to vote.

"From the Revolutionary Guards to Friday prayer leaders, the hardline, unelected part of the establishment backs Raisi," a senior former Iranian official told Reuters.

"But it is a risky decision. It might cause protests similar to those in 2009, as different walks of the society, desiring evolution inside the establishment, have united against Raisi."

The Guards hope that a win for Raisi will give them an opportunity to claw back economic and political power lost in Shia Iran's complex theocratic and republican governing structure since 2015, when Iran struck a nuclear deal with world powers that brought it out of international isolation.

Possible successor to Khamenei

Although Khamenei is guarded about his political preferences, he appears to back Raisi both as a presidential candidate and possible successor.

But in an apparent reference to the 2009 disturbances, Khamenei, an unelected clerical hardliner who has the ultimate say in Iran, has previously warned he would confront anyone trying to interfere in the election.

Rouhani, who championed the deal to lift most sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on its disputed nuclear programme, is a staunch supporter of engagement with the West and liberal reforms to the economy, now dominated by state institutions.

He also says a hardline victory could put Iran back on a more confrontational, economically damaging course with the West, and would prevent the opening of society that a majority of Iranians, especially the youth, yearn to see.

The president and his popular foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif were swarmed by supporters as they voted early in the capital.

"The enthusiastic participation of Iranians in the election reinforces our national power and security," said Rouhani after casting his vote.

Raisi says he will stick by the nuclear deal, but points to a persistent economic slump as evidence Rouhani's diplomatic efforts have failed.

"Instead of using the capable hands of our young people to resolve problems, they are putting our economy in the hands of foreigners," he said at a closing campaign rally in second city Mashhad on Wednesday.

Despite the removal of nuclear-related sanctions in 2016, lingering unilateral US sanctions that target Iran's record on human rights and terrorism have kept many foreign companies wary of putting stakes in the Iranian market.

A protege of Khamenei, Raisi focused his campaign on the economy, visiting rural areas and villages, promising housing, jobs and more welfare benefits for the poor.

'Unrealistic' promises

Analysts have rejected Raisi's promises of jobs and cash handouts as unrealistic but admit these could win traction with voters who have felt few benefits so far from the nuclear deal.

Raisi, a long-serving member of the judiciary who was one of four judges who sentenced thousands of political prisoners to death in 1988, gathered the hardline camp behind him after other conservative candidates dropped out of the race.

But analysts agreed the gathering of Khamenei's powerful allies behind Raisi seemed to have had the unintended effect of energising Rouhani's supporters, uniting opposition and pro-reform figures, artists and activists to back his re-election.

The campaign was replete with caustic televised debates and bruising broadsides. Raisi accused Rouhani of "economic elitism, mismanagement, yielding to Western pressure, and corruption".

Rouhani hit back in a sharper campaign strategy to mobilise Iranian women and young people who became jaded about the vote after losing hope in his ability to ease religious repression in society as promised in 2013, when he won by a landslide.

While the vote may not have a decisive influence on foreign policy, which is set by Khamenei, the election of a hardliner could see greater repression and further deter foreign trade and investment seen as vital to rebuilding the economy.

Some 350,000 security forces were deployed around the country to protect the election, state television reported.

Polls close at 6pm, although authorities often extend voting into the evening. Ballot counting will start at midnight and final results are expected within 24 hours of polls closing, the semi-official Fars news agency said. The elections are also for city and village councils.

Young People: you didn’t vote, and now you protest?

May 18, 2017

Immediately after the vote on Brexit, thousands of young people marched in the streets of England to show their disagreement over the choice to leave Europe. But polls indicated that had they voted en masse (only 37 percent voted), the result of the referendum would have been the opposite.

In the political system, it is now taken for granted that youth will largely abstain, and the agenda tends to ignore them more and more.

This has created a vicious circle, setting up priorities which do not represent them.

Yet, the analysis of the elections after the shattering economic and social crisis of 2008-9 is clear and statistically evident.

The European Parliament conducted research on the European elections of 2014 in the 28 member countries.

While the youngest Europeans (18-24) are more positive about the European Union than the oldest (55+), far fewer of them turned out to vote. Turnout was higher among the oldest respondents.

Some 51 percent of the 55+ voted, while only 28 percent did in the 18-24 age group. This is relatively unchanged since the 2009 elections. And young people were more inclined to decide on the day of the elections, or a few days before (28 percent compared with the +55 group).

Already in 2014, 31 percent of the younger group said they never voted, against 19 percent of the 55+ age group. Yet, the younger the age, the more people had the feeling of being Europeans: 70 percent for the 18-24 year-olds, and 59 percent for the 55+ group.

It could be said, of course, that European elections are a special case. But a look at the past national elections in Europe confirms this trend. In the Austrian presidential elections of 2016, youth participation was at 43 percent. In 2010, it was 48 percent.

In the Dutch parliamentarian elections of 2017, the age group 18-24 vote was at 66 percent: it was 70 percent in 2012. In the Italian referendum of December 2016, the youth abstention was 38 percent, against 32 percent of the general population.

And in the recent French presidential elections, the data are consistent: 78 percent abstention for the 25-34 age group; 65 percent for the 24-35; a solid 51 percent for the 35-49; and then 44 percent for the 50-64, with only 30 percent for those 65 and over.

In Israel, just 58 percent of under 35s, and just 41 percent of those under 25, voted in 2013, compared with 88 percent of over 55s. In Britain and Poland less than half of under 25s voted in the last general elections, compared with 88 percent of over 55s.

The growing youth abstention has significant implications. Let us take the last American elections that brought Donald Trump to the White House.

The so-called Millennials, those of the age group 18-35, now make up 31 percent of the electorate. The Silent Generation (those 71+) are now 12 percent of the voting pool, and Generation X (36-51) makes up about 25 percent of the electorate.

Bernie Sanders’ run was based on 2 million votes from the 19-24 age group – voters who basically abandoned the elections after his loss in the primaries. Young people’s abstention rate, close to 67 percent, made the Millennials equivalent to the Silent Generation, and lost its demographic advantage.

Millennials had a favourable view of Sanders at 54 percent, against 37 percent of Clinton. Just 17 percent of young people had a positive view of Trump.

Had only millennials voted, Clinton would have won the election in a landslide, with 473 electoral votes to Trump’s 32.

The first obvious observation is that if the traditional intergenerational rift disappears, we will have little change in politics, as older voters are usually more conservative. And the second obvious observation is that citizens’ participation will progressively shrink, as the young will age.

What is worrying is that we have too many polls on the reasons behind the political disenchantment of young people to think that the political system is unaware. On the contrary, many political analysts think that parties in power don’t mind abstentions in general terms. It shrinks the voters to those who feel connected, whose priorities are clear and simpler to satisfy, as the older generations feel more secure than the younger ones.

And the theme of young people is disappearing in the political debate, or is merely rhetorical. A good example is that the Italian government devoted in 2016 a whopping 20 billion dollars to save four banks, while it dedicated a total of 2 billion dollars to create jobs for young people, in a country which has close to 40 percent youth unemployment.

For youth, the message is clear: finance is more important than their future. So they do not vote, and they are less and less a factor in the political system.

Spending on education and research are the first victims (together with health) when austerity hits. The results are evident. In Australia (where 25 percent of the young people said that “it does not matter what kind of government we have”), those over 65 pay no tax on income under 24,508 dollars. Younger workers start paying taxes at 15,080 dollars.

In rich countries the world over, people over 65 have subsidies and special discounts, such as on the cinema and other activities. Not the young people…. But when somebody with a message for the young comes into the picture, participation changes.

In Canada, just 37 percent of the 18-24s voted in the election of 2008, against 39 percent in 2011. But when Justin Trudeau campaigned on a message of hope in 2015, youth participation rose sharply to 57 percent.

What is a real cause of concern for democracy, as an institution based on the waning concept of popular participation, is that young people are not at all apolitical.

In fact, they are very aware of priorities like climate change, gender equality, social justice, common goods, and other concepts, much more than the older generation. At least 10 percent of young people volunteer in social groups and civil society, against 3 percent of the older generations.

They feel much more connected to the causes of humanity, have fewer racial biases, believe more in international institutions, and are more interested in international affairs. A good example is Chile. In 2010 general abstention was 13.1 percent. In 2013 it went to 58 percent. Youth abstention was 71 percent. If young people would vote, they could change the results.

Simply, they have given up on political institutions as corrupt, inefficient, and disconnected from their lives. A report last year found that 72 percent of Americans born before the Second World War thought it was “essential” to live in a country that was governed democratically. Less than a third of those born in the 1980s agreed.

We must note that the decline of participation in elections is a worldwide phenomenon, not just among young people, but also the general population.

The last elections at the writing of this article were in the Bahamas; only 50 percent of the population went to vote. In Slovenia abstention is now at 57.6 percent, in Mali 54.2 percent, in Serbia 53.7 percent, in Portugal 53.5 percent, in Lesotho 53.4 percent, in Lithuania 52.6 percent, in Colombia 52.1 percent, in Bulgaria 51.8 percent, in Switzerland 50.9 percent…and this in regions as different as Latin America, Europe, Africa and Asia…the crisis of political participation goes from the cradle of the parliamentarian system (Great Britain), 24 percent abstention, in 1964, to 34.2 in 2010 to Italy (7.1 percent in 2063, and in 2013 24.8 percent).

There is a general consensus among analysts that the damages of globalization and the discrediting of political parties are the major causes for the decline in participation. Yet the winners never take into account the reasons of the losers.

The victory of Macron in the last French elections was well-received in Germany, but as soon as the new president started to speak about the need to strengthen Europe, for instance by creating a European finance minister, the immediate reaction was: Germany is not going to place one cent of its well-earned surplus with Europe to the service of other countries: those who spend their money on women and drinks and now expect solidarity form the North of Europe (the Dutch President of Eurofin, Jeroen Dijsselbloem).

How long it will it take to get the winners inside the European Union to understand that the political crisis is a global one, and must be addressed urgently?

Voter turnout has been dropping precipitously in Germany, from over 82 percent in 1998 to only 70.8 percent in 2009. As at the last election, this year the number of non-voters is expected to surpass the number of voters in favor of the most successful party.

Manfred Güllner, the head of the Forsa polling institute, warns of a non-voter record. “There is reason to fear that fewer than 70 percent of eligible voters will go to the polls,” he says.

If the non-voters were included on a conventional TV graphic, they would have the highest bar in the chart. They should actually be touted as the true winners of the election — if it weren’t for the fact that this also represents a defeat for democracy.

—Roberto Savio
https://human-wrongs-watch.net

What’s the difference between the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems?

Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats all came out with their manifestos this week.

As you’d expect, each party is keen to prove that theirs is the right vision for Britain at this time of national turmoil.

There are some partisan jibes and a fair bit of self-congratulation from all sides. But behind the rhetoric, is there any real difference in what the three parties offer voters?

Who do you want to be your next Prime Minister?

• By Georgina Lee-19 MAY 2017

The Conservative manifesto never actually mentions Jeremy Corbyn, but Theresa May’s constant refrain of “strong and stable leadership” suggests that she wants this election to be about personalities, not parties.

In fact, the word “Conservative” has been missing from Mrs May’s campaign banners this time.

The Labour manifesto makes no secret of its contempt for Tory policy, but avoids hand-to-hand combat with May.

This could be because – as we noted in a recent FactCheck video – pollings suggests Mrs May’s personal appeal to voters crosses party lines.

The Liberal Democrats have taken a novel approach. Their leader, Tim Farron, explicitly states that he is not auditioning for the role of Prime Minister and that the Tories are “on course to win this election”. 

Their pitch is not to be the party of government, but to usurp Labour as Her Majesty’s Official Opposition.

The Tories might be right that this election will be decided on personalities. But let’s put aside the leaders’ aspirations for a second, and consider what the parties have to say on three key policy areas – Brexit, health and social care, and taxes.

Brexit

The Lib Dems are the only party of the three to propose a second EU referendum – this time on a future Brexit deal.

They accuse Labour of “holding Theresa May’s hand as she jumps off the cliff edge of a hard Brexit”, and say they want to fight to retain the UK’s membership of the single market and customs union.

Though they wouldn’t admit it, Labour and the Conservatives appear to agree on the main elements of “hard” Brexit.

Theresa May openly declared that she wants to leave the single market, and the customs union, and end freedom of movement of EU citizens.

Labour are less explicit, but the result is much the same. They say that their “emphasis is on retaining the benefits” of the customs union and single market, but make no mention of trying to stay part of those structures.

Labour state plainly that “freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union”, and that seems to settle the matter.

Both Labour and the Tories have ruled out a referendum on the negotiated Brexit deal.

FactCheck verdict: Labour and the Tories appear to be in broad agreement on a hard Brexit, though Labour are less forthcoming about their plans.

The Lib Dems want to stay in the single market and the customs union, and are the only party offering another referendum. They are seeking a softer Brexit than the other two.

Health and social care

All three parties say they will spend more money on the NHS. Labour say they would spend the most: injecting more than £30 billion over the next parliament.

The Lib Dems promise to create a pot of £6 billion per year for five years (which would also total £30 billion in the period), although that money would not just be for the NHS alone – it would be split between health and social care.

The Tories lag behind, saying they’ll spend £8 billion in total over five years.

They haven’t shared all the details with us on this and, as we pointed out yesterday, the party has a history of creative reporting when it comes to NHS spending commitments.

The Lib Dems want to remove the pay freeze for NHS workers, as do Labour – both will remove the pay cap for the public sector. The Tories haven’t said anything on public sector pay, so we are assuming they’d keep the cap in place.

The Tories have said that they would change the way that social care is funded: if you’re cared for at home and the combined value of your savings and property is over £100,000, you will have to pay for your own care.

This is in stark contrast to the Lib Dem and Labour proposals. Labour wants to create a National Care Service with £8 billion in funding over five years.

The Lib Dems are promising to spend some of the £6 billion they have allocated to health and social care on looking after the elderly.

FactCheck verdict: Labour and Lib Dems say they would spend a lot more on the NHS than the Conservatives.

And they both say they’ll spend more on social care over the next parliament.

The Tories want tougher rules on how existing funding is spent, and have not committed any further money.

Taxes

The Lib Dems are the only party proposing an income tax rise for everyone earning over the Personal Allowance threshold (currently £11,500). They propose an increase of 1p in every pound of taxable income, and plan to use the revenue to fund health and social care.

Labour have promised no income tax rises for anyone earning less than £80,000, and no rise in VAT or personal National Insurance Contributions.

They will increase income tax for those earning over £80,000 and raise Corporation Tax, although smaller businesses will pay a lower rate. FactCheck crunched the numbers earlier this week – we’re not sure this will bring in as much money as Labour think.

The Tories have matched Labour’s promise not to raise the rate of VAT, but otherwise have offered very few hard figures on how taxes might change in a Conservative administration.

They have reiterated a few of their existing commitments. Otherwise, their tax plan is simply a broad intent to “reduce taxes on Britain’s businesses and working families”.

FactCheck verdict: Under the Lib Dems, nearly everyone takes a small hit. Under Labour, 95 per cent of people won’t see their taxes go up, but businesses will suffer. The Tories want to lower taxes overall, but haven’t committed to anything concrete.

So do voters have a real choice at this election?

That depends on what you think is the most important issue. If Brexit is your main priority, then the Lib Dems are offering policies that are genuinely distinct from Labour and the Tories.

The only problem is that even they don’t expect to be in government to enact them. (Although that doesn’t mean they can’t be an effective parliamentary opposition, of course).

On health, social care and taxation, there are a range of options on the table.

Labour would raise taxes the most overall, and spend the most on the public sector.

The Lib Dems would spend a little less, and raise taxes more evenly between groups.

The Tories have yet to spell out their full tax plan, but we know they will spend significantly less than Labour across the board.

We expect to learn more about the detail of how spending could change under these different plans when the Institute for Fiscal Studies publish their manifesto analysis next week.

Update: we have updated the article to clarify that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats want to remove the public sector pay cap.

Swedish Prosecutor Drops Rape Investigation Against WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange

May 19, 2017

(STOCKHOLM) — Sweden's top prosecutor said Friday she is dropping an investigation into a rape claim against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange after almost seven years.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement Friday that Marianne Ny "has decided to discontinue the investigation."

Assange took refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London in 2012 to escape extradition to Sweden to answer questions about sex-crime allegations from two women. He has been there ever since, fearing that if he is arrested he might ultimately be extradited to the United States. Last month, President Donald Trump said he would support any decision by the Justice Department to charge Assange.

WikiLeaks tweeted after the Swedish announcement: "UK refuses to confirm or deny whether it has already received a US extradition warrant for Julian Assange. Focus now moves to UK,"

Friday's announcement means Assange is no longer under any investigation in Sweden. But the Metropolitan Police said Assange is still subject to arrest for the "much less serious offense" of jumping bail in 2012.

The 45-year-old Australian computer hacker was wanted in Sweden for questioning over a rape allegation stemming from a 2010 visit.

"This is a total victory for Julian Assange. He is now free to leave the embassy when he wants. We have won the Assange case. He is of course happy and relieved. He has been critical that it has lasted that long," Per E Samuelsson, his lawyer in Sweden, told Swedish Radio. Samuelsson was not immediately available for comments.

___

Gregory Katz and Jill Lawless in London and Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, contributed to this story.

'Fat but fit is a big fat myth'

Image copyrightBEELDBEWERKING

By Smitha Mundasad-17 May 2017

The idea that people can be fat but medically fit is a myth, say experts speaking in Portugal.

Their early work, as yet unpublished, involved looking at the GP records of 3.5 million people in the UK.

They say people who were obese but who had no initial signs of heart disease, diabetes or high cholesterol were not protected from ill health in later life, contradicting previous research.

A summary of their study was discussed at the European Congress on Obesity.

The term "fat but fit" refers to the alluring theory that if people are obese but all their other metabolic factors such as blood pressure and blood sugar are within recommended limits then the extra weight will not be harmful.

In this study, researchers at the University of Birmingham analysed data of millions of British patients between 1995 and 2015 to see if this claim held true.

They tracked people who were obese at the start of the study (defined as people with a body mass index of 30 or more) who had no evidence of heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes at this point.

They found these people who were obese but "metabolically healthy" were at higher risk of developing heart disease, strokes and heart failure than people of normal weight.

Is the 'fat but fit' theory well and truly busted?

Dr Mike Knapton, from the British Heart Foundation, said: "It's not often that research on this scale and magnitude is able to clarify an age-old myth.

"These findings should be taken extremely seriously and I'd urge healthcare professionals to take heed."

He added: "Previously we used to think that being overweight led to an increase in heart attacks and stroke because it raised your blood pressure or cholesterol.

"What was new from this study for me is that it showed that people who were overweight or obese were at increased risk of heart disease even though they may have been healthy in every other respect.

"Just being overweight puts you at increased risk of heart attack and stroke."

But the study has not appeared in a scientific journal and, as such, it will not have gone through a number of checks by other academics to judge whether it is scientifically sound.

It is difficult for example to know how well other influential factors - such as diet, lifestyle or smoking - were taken into account.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

This makes it hard for scientists to see how clear-cut the conclusions are or gauge how big any increased risks of ill-health might be.

What should people do?

According to the British Heart Foundation, the normal heart health advice applies - not smoking, eating a balanced diet, exercising regularly and limiting alcohol intake - can all help keep people healthy.

Dr Knapton added: "This is not about laying the blame at individuals though.

"This is a wake-up call for planners, local councillors, food manufacturers and the government to make sure we can make healthy choices more easily."

Dr Rishi Caleyachetty from the University of Birmingham, added: "The priority of health professionals should be to promote and facilitate weight loss among obese persons, regardless of the presence or absence of metabolic abnormalities."

He added: "At the population level, so-called metabolically healthy obesity is not a harmless condition."

Does everyone agree?

Other studies suggest it might just be possible to be fat and have the right genes, for example, to remain fit.

For example research published in 2012 appears to suggests it is possible for people to buck the trend and be fat and healthy if they have no metabolic diseases.

Published in the European Heart Journal, researchers suggest people who are obese yet physically healthy are at no greater risk of heart disease or cancer than people of normal weight.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Fitness and fatness: tricky things to measure?

But other experts point out that the way scientists measure fatness and fitness makes this a tricky area to study and could make some of the more tantalising results invalid.

Tom Sanders, emeritus professor of nutrition and dietetics, King's College London, says a major weakness of the Birmingham study is that it uses definite cut-offs to decide when someone has high blood pressure or high cholesterol for example.

Instead, he argues that it is too simple and not accurate to use such definite values to decide whether someone is healthy.

And other studies have suggested that it is not always the amount of fat that matters but where the excess fat is carried on the body that can affect fitness and health.

For example, weight around the middle may be more damaging than weight distributed evenly around the body.

Overall, experts say it is important to not just focus on what you see in the mirror or on the scales - exercise and healthy eating can help boost wellness, no matter how much a person weighs.

Students mark 'Tamil Genocide Day' at Jaffna Uni

18 May  2017

Remembering the massacre of tens of thousands of Tamils at the end of the armed conflict in 2009, students and staff at the University of Jaffna on Thursday marked 'Tamil Genocide Day' on May 18th. 

As They Unfolded

By Mahendran Thiruvarangan –MAY 18, 2017

Mahendran Thiruvarangan

The warmer sun had appeared at last,
The city was gliding into the summer’s embrace;
Looking for fat-free milk on the globalized shelves,
The sell by date stared at my eyes:
MAY 18.

The mind-camera travels back in time,
Some eight years ago, to a nation strewn with charred bones.
Visuals unfurl on a television screen
Stationed at a boutique on a hill by the singing river;
Words typeset by a tall bespectacled fugitive
Show up in black on the library’s desktop;
In a rented room full of unwashed clothes,
Friends tell friends stories of friends
Broken and bruised
As loud cheers rock the streets where people served kiribath.

A woman in her thirties and two little boys
Cling firmly onto a tyre inflated with hope and life
Floating on a lagoon in the east,
Wading through the furious waters with
What is left of their battle-scarred bodies and souls;
They walk, they swim,
Performing all in-between acts and others all the way
To live.

Read More

Tamil in Mannar remember genocide on May 18

18 May  2017

Tamils in Adampan, Mannar lit candles and laid flowers in memory of the tens of thousands of Tamils killed at the end of the armed conflict in May 2009. 

Related Articles: 

 Tamil party urges Sri Lankan government to enable Office on Missing Persons immediately

Fri, May 19, 2017

May 18, Colombo: On the eighth anniversary of the end of the war, Sri Lanka's main Tamil party, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has urged the Lankan government to immediately enable the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) that has been approved by the parliament last year to help families of missing persons to discover the fate of their loved ones.

Following a petition submitted by the families of missing persons in the North to him, TNA parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran said his party would continue to urge the government to implement the OMP Act as soon as possible.

The OMP bill was enacted in Parliament on 11 August 2016 and certified into law by the Speaker on 23 August 2016.

The passage of the bill allows the Sri Lankan government to set up an Office on Missing Persons to help several thousands of families of missing persons across Sri Lanka to discover the fate of their loved ones, and the circumstances under which they went missing.

However the OMP Act is yet to be operationalized.

Addressing an event to mark the International Press Freedom Day in Colombo on Tuesday, MP Sumanthiran said the relatives of the missing persons are undergoing torture for the past several years as they still believe that their missing persons are alive.


Speaking to media the Tamil MP pointed out that the OMP Act needs to be brought under a ministry by the President as stated in the Constitution.

After 2015 General Election, the President assigned the subject of National Integration & Reconciliation to himself by way of a Gazette notification.

According to a report by Verité' Research, the Constitution and the 19th Amendment prohibit the President from assigning the subject of the OMP Act to himself and therefore, the operation of the OMP Act will require the President to assign the subject of the OMP Act to a minister other than himself.

MP Sumanthiran says the Tamil party will not accept the predicament as an excuse as amendments to a piece of legislation can be brought at any time.

However, the President had assured that the Act would be operational after incorporating the proposed amendments, the MP said.

Tamils remember massacred civilians at Mullivaikkaal beach

18 May  2017

Members of the Tamil community in Mullathivu gathered at the Mullivaikkaal beach this morning to commemorate the thousands of Tamil civilians that died at the final stages of the armed conflict between the Sri Lankan armed forces and Liberation Tamil Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Mullivaikkaal beach was the last government designated 'No Fire Zone' that saw thousands of Tamil civilians shelled by Sri Lanka's state forces The event was attended by religious leaders from the local community and inaugurated by the Chief Minister of the Northern Provincial Council and the leader of the Tamil National Alliance R Sampanthan. Senior members of the TNA including MA Sumanthiran and Maavai Senanthirajah were also present.

During the speeches, a member of the public questioned a previous statement made by the TNA leader in parliament labelling members of the Tamil militant struggle terrorists. The question sparked outrage amongst the crowd who called for the politicians to stop speaking, noting that the leader of the TNA seldom appeared at remembrance events.

The event continued with a flame that was lit to commemorate massacred civilians with family members placing flowers in their memory.

Military personnell and plain clothed CID officers were seen present at the perimeters of the event. 

Mullivaikkal: A Call For Reason

By Chamindra Weerawardhana –MAY 19, 2017

Dr. Chamindra Weerawardhana

It has been eight years since Sri Lanka underwent one of the most decisive turns, if not the most decisive and epoch-changing turn, in her post-1948 history. The conclusion of the final military offensive against the LTTE, Colombo’s resounding victory, and the LTTE’s defeat, resulted in a substantive transformation of the national and regional security configurations. This was an outcome previously deemed impossible in practitioner and academic circles. To so-called ‘Sri Lanka researchers’ – a mixture of anthropologists, geographers and development studies people – where ‘whiteness’ is deemed carte blanche to write authoritatively about Sri Lanka, May 2009 was an unexpected outcome.

On the diplomatic front, many governments, especially in Delhi and in the West, expected what they termed a ‘peace settlement’. Their worries about the course of action the government of Sri Lanka eventually chose were evident in the Kouchner-Miliband diplomatic visit to Sri Lanka, weeks before Mullivailkkal.

To some, this day represents the ultimate victory, if not the ‘liberation’ of Sri Lanka from the ‘terrorists’.

To others, this day is a day of tremendous and unprecedented violence, of murder, of rape, of torture.

The military victory led to a major humanitarian crisis, and the personal narratives of Tamil people who experienced it were extremely disturbing, to say the very least. The state, however, practiced a policy of abject denial. To state authorities, the treatment of people in the ‘camps’ was exemplary. Cases of sexual violence were abjectly rejected. When amateur videos from mobile phone cameras, capturing moments of the war’s final stages, leaked out to the Western world and a British media company and a cis-white man capitalised upon them, Colombo continued its policy of abject denial, and even went as far as making its own ‘film’, entitled ‘Lies agreed upon’.

This writer, a Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lankan, wishes to stay in her lane when discussing Mullivaikkal.

What follows is a Sinhala, and Sinhala-Buddhist perspective on Mullivaikkal, a reflection of how the government of Sri Lanka can begin a mature conversation on what happened and what lies ahead.

No room for politics of denial

The politics of denial – denial of the suffering of people, especially the economically and financially most vulnerable of Tamils – are never viable. This is the first reality that requires repetitive emphasis. Wars are never fought in the absence of civilian casualties. It is a fact that there was a sense of tremendous anger among segments of the armed forces with regards to the LTTE. This was also the case in the wider Sinhala community. The media and the political class were never intent upon highlighting one salient reality – that the Tamil Tigers, if not the LTTE, or the youth who joined the LTTE since the late 1970s to the late 2000s, were all Sri Lankan citizens. They were all Sri Lankans, just like us all. The only difference was their sheer sense of discontent, anger and despair over a range of issues (which, to a large extent, continue to be unaddressed).

The LTTE: why?

The LTTE committed acts of atrocity. There is no denial of its tactics, of the violence, of the internalised forms of repression it generated within segments of the Tamil community. There is widespread anger against the LTTE not only among the Sinhala and Muslim people, but also among many Tamil people.

However, and despite all of the violence that the LTTE generated, the government of Sri Lanka needs to recognize, and openly admit one key fact – that the LTTE came to being due to the repetitive failings of the government of Sri Lanka vis-à-vis the Tamil people. If a more cautious approach was pursued in the post-1948 years, the rise of the LTTE – among a hard-working, upwardly-mobile and diligent people – would not have occurred.

In making this statement, it is also necessary to not to lose sight of the fact that the government of Sri Lanka also failed Sinhalese youth, especially those who shared the same social stratification as Tamil youth who created and fought in the LTTE. When we look at the divisive politics of today, where a great deal of silencing of marginal voices operates, a system that systematically favours and encourages political dynasties, and the continuity of social divisions, the problems that led to armed violence in the north and south continue to be, to a large extent, under-if not-un-addressed.

Admitting basic realities

The way forward lies in accepting the fact that the JVP members who resorted to armed violence in 1971 and 88-89, and the LTTE members (and those of other Tamil groups) who opted for armed violence from the 1970s on, did so for reasons. They were all Sri Lankan citizens. Those who created, strengthened and fought for the LTTE may certainly have called for a separate state. At the present juncture, it is important for us, especially in the Sinhala community and in the government of Sri Lanka, to revisit the reasons why they developed the separate state argument. It is in such a line of reflection that concrete responses to today’s challenges can be found.

Right to remember

Read More