Nonsense theories that hominids originated in Europe

Nationalist bombast even in science

The controversial fossils (a) from Greece; (b) from Bulgaria (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177127)

The researchers claim that at the bottom of the figure, the split between chimp line and the branch leading to humans, happened in Europe, and not in Africa as everyone else believes [https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3c/ef/c8/3cefc8408cb375b63ef1427672e3fe1e— human-evolution-tree-human-evolution-timeline.jpg]

by Kumar David-September 2, 2017, 7:07 pm 

The scientific community has reacted with disbelief, if not outright rejection of a thesis put out by four European researchers that hominid origin (the point at which early humans split from the apes) first emerged in Greece and Bulgaria. The conclusions are based on two sets of fossil findings from Greece and Bulgaria which the authors of a controversial paper, published on the Internet in May 2017, date to 7.2 million years ago. This contradicts the universally accepted view that the first hominids emerged 6.8 to 7.0 million years ago in Chad, Africa. If it is true it would stand what is now accepted as human evolution theory on its head. Is there reason to go along with the thesis? Before recounting what the scientific community says let me do a little simplification.

The terms hominoid, hominid, hominine and hominin, are used by palaeontologists (chaps who study fossils), to refer to apes, humans and ape ancestors, African apes and humans and the fourth is used to include our non-ape ancestors. The period of interest is called the Miocene, from about 23 million years ago to 5.3 million years ago when, in the opinion of these palaeontologist, the world was warmer and conducive to the type of evolution under examination. The accepted view is that our ancestors split from the chimpanzee in the late Miocene or early in the next geological epoch, the Pleistocene, and then into many lines of humanlike apes who were awarded jaw breaking names like autrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo erectus. These guys were bipedal, stood up straight, used stone tools, made fire and cooked food. All disappeared about half a million years ago leaving the ground clear for us, homo sapiens, everywhere, and in Europe for Neanderthals, who disappeared 30,000 years ago because we ate them.

Before that however some hominids ( homo erectus) took off on a jaunt, famously called Out of Africa 1 (OA-1), probably one-and-a-half million years ago, when they crawled out into Asia Minor, Europe and Asia as far as China – the famous Java Man and the infamous Peking Man. Remember that land masses and seas where differently conjoined at the time. Do not confuse OA-1 with OA-2 which was much later, maybe 80,000 thousand to 100,000 years ago when modern man, homo sapiens, who emerged in Africa 190,000 years ago, took a trip out of that continent and spread him/herself and his/her genes all over the longsuffering globe. I call Peking Man infamous because the Chinese are no less obnoxious than the rest of us in their nationalism. In my travels across China, and in translated historical and (pseudo)-scientific Chinese compendia, I have come across no end of claims that homo sapiens independently evolved in China into the Han Chinese and other East Asian races. How could the magnificent Chinese civilisation be the work of descendants of primitive black Africans? Perish the thought!

My Tamil masters in school, Vinasi and Satchi, despised each other, but they shared one narrow minded belief (in other ways they were wonderful people). They would have laid down their lives to prove that Tamil was the oldest language in India, and most particularly, older than Sanskrit. I don’t know the answer to this enigma, nor is anyone certain whether today’s Tamils are descendants of the Indus Valley civilisation people pushed south by Aryan invaders from the north and west. If so, maybe their language is very old. But the point I am making is that jaundice, prejudice and narrow nationalism is the common contagion of the human species which has failed to free itself from bigotry and the intolerance of identity consciousness. So cheer up Lanka, we are not alone.

Occidentalopithicus Greco-Bulgaris

For the duration of this essay let me use OG-B for the chap whose jawbone (mandible) and teeth are the subject of the research paper cited at the beginning. The specimens are not new, (a) was found more than fifty years ago (1944) and (b) too has been hanging around some museum but I don’t know for how long. See accompanying figure for (a) and (b). What is new in the paper is the more modern instrument used to re-examine the fossils. The gadget is a micro CT (computerised tomography) scanner. It’s a spanking new (well not so new, CT was introduced 20 years ago) way of using X-rays to peer into specimens from all angles and in all sorts of sections. Micro means that it does it on a very fine scale. That’s all I know and that’s enough for you.

What the researchers claim is that the study has shown up a range of affinities with previously known species of hominin that allows them to place their specimens very early in the split between Homo (our ancients) and Pan (chips and bonobos; the bonobo is sex crazed variant of the chip, previously called the pygmy chip, found in the forests of the Congo Basin). I daresay the researchers did a fine job on the technical (micro-CT) side, but the poor sods didn’t realise the criticism would be withering. To make an extravagant claim on the basis of flimsy jaw-bone evidence is like the Old Testament yarn (Judges 15) where Samson vanquishes 10,000 Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass – my father used to say: "More likely, the arse-bone of a Jew".

Let me give you a few samples of the criticism rebuffing the thesis. The first is Julien Benoit, a vertebrate palaeontologist and paleo-biologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

QUOTE

"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to support them. The African origin of humankind (hominine) is currently supported by two really important elements. Firstly, thousands of hominin fossils have been found on African soil since the first fossil African hominin, Australopithecus Africanus, was discovered in South Africa in 1924. Nearly a century of fossil findings has followed, chronicling the complete evolution of hominin on African soil. These fossils range from (specimens) which lived between six and seven million years ago in what is today Chad, to the earliest homo sapiens from east Africa".

"Secondly, our closest ape relatives, the Chimpanzees and the Gorilla are also from Africa. Our last common ancestors lived somewhere between eight and 12 million years ago, which strongly suggests that the origin of humankind is deeply rooted in Africa. This leave little room for a putative European origin. Any study that counters this consensus would have to provide very strong evidence and perfect methodology to support its claim. In my opinion, this article doesn’t meet those criteria".

"(Thirdly) the material isn’t well preserved. It consists mostly of a jaw with no complete teeth preserved. That’s a problem because the teeth’s anatomical characteristics are the most important element when classifying any primate, including humans".

END QUOTE

Benoit is a South African, so his rejection of the theory fits my rule of thumb that scientists are not devoid of nationalist impulses. On the other hand British newspapers like the Independent, Telegraph, and the Daily Mail and the once respectable New Scientist have not been shy to splash claims of OG-B origin of the genus homo. America’s Newsweek also gave prominence to what is but a minor storm in the global science teacup though American scientists have been sceptical.

"For now, there is no way to know whether the jaws and teeth belonged to an ape with some hominid-like features or a hominid with some apelike features, my guess is the former" said paleo-anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington, DC. And Richard Potts who leads the Smithsonian’s human origins programme says "The idea that human ancestors with upright posture, bipedal walking and small canine teeth) first emerged in Europe has little to support it. They have little to back up their claim that an isolated place in southern Europe could have been home to an ancestor of the African hominin". He criticized the researchers’ claim that the fossil’s canine root clearly indicates its status as an early hominin, arguing they did not have enough contextual evidence to draw conclusions from the single canine root. Anthropologist Susan Antón echoed "The long line of later hominins found in Africa suggests an African origin".

A European origin of branching into the homo line has won traction only among European reporters. Unfortunately, every human culture and social class suffers from phoney identity hubris.

Tenth of men aged 50 'have heart age 10 years older'

By Katie Silver-4 September 2017

One-tenth of 50-year-old men have a heart age 10 years older than they are, heightening their risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke, a study suggests.

The Public Health England analysis is based on responses from 1.2 million people to its Heart Age Test - 33,000 of whom were men aged 50.

The organisation also predicts that 7,400 people will die from heart disease or stroke this month alone.

Heart disease is the main cause of death among men and second among women.

Most of these deaths are preventable and a quarter are people aged under 75.

"Addressing our risk of heart disease and stroke should not be left until we are older," PHE's head of cardiovascular disease Jamie Waterall said.

How to improve your heart health:

• Give up smoking
• Get active
• Manage your weight
• Eat more fibre
• Cut down on saturated fat
• Get your five a day fruit and vegetables
• Cut down on salt
• Eat fish
• Drink less alcohol
• Read labels on food and drink packaging

Source: NHS Choices

PHE said about half of the survey respondents did not know their blood pressure and that 5.6 million people living in England currently have high blood pressure without knowing it.

This is "extremely worrying", according to Dr Mike Knapton of the British Heart Foundation.

"These silent conditions can lead to a deadly heart attack or stroke if untreated," he said.

A new version of the test on the BHF website refers users to apps and other resources to help them get their blood tested and improve their heart health.

Getting your blood pressure tested "can be the first important step to prolonging your life", said Katherine Jenner of Blood Pressure UK.

The Bar’s abandonment of commonsense and reason

*I saved Mahinda from the electric chair-MS
*Video: Ex-CJ says if not for his order 

Sunday, September 03, 2017

In taking umbrage at Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake’s ‘politico-talk’ on corruption of lawyers and judges and thereby allowing this to become a bone of contention so to speak, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka clearly lacks both commonsense and reason to the point of absurdity.

If the Bar proceeds to take legal action against him for contempt, no doubt this will delightfully spiral out of control. The Deputy Minister will use his privileges on the floor of the House to defend himself with vim and vigor. The resulting uproar will convert a sober discussion on the law of contempt into an explosion of ‘sound and fury’ signifying precisely nothing.

 

Gone are the legal giants of yore

 

It is a pity that the Bar seems quite unable to perform its functions with a modicum of native intelligence. For the past several years, the interventions of this once premier body has swayed much like a demented yo-yo from side to another under the leadership of one President or the other, tilting too much to one extreme at each point whilst abandoning positions of moderation and principle. Gone are the legal giants of yore at whose sternly authoritative voices, the political leadership of the day once virtually trembled. Despite personal political predilections, these counsel of stature had the capacity to take public positions untroubled by primitive bias.

 

Now we have a far more pedestrian reality. Politicians proliferate even at professional social events to celebrate the ‘conferral of silks.’ This may be understandable given that this is seen by the public more as a political favour than as an earned tribute. And in a palpable if not very public irony as we saw recently, these very ‘silks’ allow themselves to be conducted with pomp and circumstance by the now departed Minister of Justice to the Presidential Secretariat, to be lectured to on the virtues of fair and impartial practice of the law. That would be vastly amusing if it did not so thoroughly reflect on the comprehensive degeneration of professional values.

However, I do not selectively single the sitting President of the Bar alone for censure. The responsibility of the immediate past President and numerous cheer groups in inciting (this word is used with great deliberation) President Maithripala Sirisena to dismiss a sitting Chief Justice by executive fiat in 2015, scarcely before the dew had dried on the January electoral verdict, was wholly unwise. It cast a dark shadow and caused many of us to shy away in alarm.

 

Is contempt attracted by partisan political opinions?

Even now, this promises nightmarish consequences with the potential to haunt the country at any given point if and when political fortunes of those in seats of power change. Similarly, the ‘pressing’ for a particular provincial lawyer to be appointed a judge of the High Court was deplorable at the time. To wit, the protestations of those at the helm (now and then) that they act entirely uninfluenced by political considerations are fit only for the credulous.

Neither does this critique mean that personal calumny leveled at judges in web based media is acceptable. This is gross intimidation which should be stopped forthwith. But when battles are chosen, the ground must be prepared strategically. Singling out this garrulous Deputy Minister for his comments is manifestly not a felicitous choice.

 

Many years ago, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, the late Lakshman Kadirgamar put the matter in issue mischievously but very well. This was in response to a Supreme Court ruling holding the provincial correspondent of the Divaina in contempt for reporting an opposition parliamentarian who claimed that an ongoing case filed by Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the opposition presidential candidate ‘had already been proved and if the petitioner did not win, that would be the end of justice in Sri Lanka.’ Mr Kadirgamar questioned as to whether ‘the exclusive judicial function of the Court to determine cases is really usurped by an unbalanced and patently partisan opinion expressed by some politician? If so, then in every home and on every street corner, every day, thousands of contempts will be committed…

’

Sage advice that is disregarded

And then there is the celebrated instance when British law lords refused to be provoked after an eccentric lay litigant threw one book and another at them following an adverse ruling. In ‘The Due Process of Law (1980) Lord Alfred Denning points out, ‘we took no notice as this would have given into her desire to draw more attention to herself (and) she left saying: ‘I congratulate your Lordships on your coolness under fire.’ But this is sage advice that has been observed more in the breach here.

 

To put it mildly, our law on contempt has been as unstable as the Bar under its leadership at various times. At one point, we had an ex-Chief Justice Sarath Silva who sent a lay litigant to jail for reading out the provisions of the Constitution loudly in court. In any other country with professionals possessing an element of conscience, this would normally have evoked outrage. But the leaders of the Bar, formal and informal, were silent at the time. Other outfits ostensibly monitoring human rights also seemed to to prefer discretion to valour, some cowering in fear that contempt rulings, frequently threatened by this Chief Justice, would be waved against them in turn.

Examining the complaint of the lay litigant following his torture in prison in a petition filed under the Optional Protocol procedure of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by this columnist as his advocate, the United Nations Human Rights Committee echoed domestic calls for a fair and equitable law on contempt. Too much discretion is vested with the judiciary which is dangerous as this has the potential of misuse, it was opined. Years have passed since this recommendation. Various drafts on contempt of court have been in the public domain. None have been pursued with any degree of professional commitment.

 

An unfinished challenge

To be fair, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka is now in the main, engaging itself in more measured and judicious decision making than we have seen in quite a while. Threats of contempt are not casually issued by the appellate courts against luckless citizens as once was the case. That is certainly to the good. Regardless, the codification and reform of the law of contempt remains an unfinished challenge.

 

Perhaps this is one task that the Bar might usefully apply itself to instead of breathing publicity-grabbing fire on politicians who, after all, will only welcome the challenge.

SC initiates disciplinary inquiry against K’tuwakku-On Justice Malalgoda’s complaint

By Shamindra Ferdinando-September 3, 2017, 10:47 pm 

Supreme Court has initiated a disciplinary inquiry in respect of attorney-at-law Nagananda Kodituwakku’s conduct in the Court of Appeal on May 21, 2015 before the then President of the Court of Appeal justice Vijith Malalgoda, PC and justice H.C.J. Madawala.

Justice Malalgoda has now been sworn in as a Supreme Court judge.

Having faulted Kodituwakku for what the Supreme Court called improper, insulting, intolerable, unbecoming and contemptuous conduct on the basis of a complaint received from Justice Malalgoda, the SC has ordered public litigation activist to appear before it on Sept 26 at 10 am.

In summons issued on Aug 11, 2017 by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, M. M. Jayasekera, Kodituwakku, who holds Sri Lankan and British dual citizenship, has been told to show cause why he shouldn’t be suspended or removed from the Office of Attorney-at-Law in accordance with Section 42 (2) of the Judicature Act No 02 of 1978 read with Supreme Court rules (Part Vll) of 1978 made in line with Article 136 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has listed four specific allegations on the basis of submissions made by Kodituwakku on May 21, 2015 in respect of a case filed by two persons against the Director General of Customs in Court of Appeal seeking transfer of the case to a different bench. Having examined the representations made by the Court of Appeal to Supreme Court, the latter declared in summons issued to Kodituwakku his submissions were contemptuous, conduct disgraceful, dishonourable, deplorable and essentially unworthy of an attorney-at-law.

Soon after the dispute over Kodituwakku seeking a new bench, both Court of Appeal and the attorney-at-law had made written submissions to the then Chief Justice K. Sripavan in respect of the case filed by two persons against the Director General of Customs. However, the relevant file was subsequently returned to the Registrar of Court of Appeal sans CJ’s opinion.

Kodituwakku declined to comment on the case though he acknowledged that he had received summons from the Supreme Court.

According to submissions made to court, Kodituwakku has called for a different bench following his decision to withdraw a case filed in Court of Appeal on Dec. 15, 2014 challenging President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid to secure a third term. Kodituwakku has challenged the president’s eligibility in spite of the passage of the 18 Amendment to the Constitution. The attorney-at-law called for the suspension of presidential election scheduled for January 8, 2015 pending determination of his petition. Although, the petition had been reported missing from the registry of the Court of Appeal, Kodituwakku was suddenly informed by the then Attorney General on Dec. 31, 2014 of their decision to take up his petition on January 2, 2015. However, Kodituwakku withdrew the case at the behest of those who backed candidature of Maithripala Sirisena at January 2015 presidential polls, called by his predecessor two years ahead of schedule.

Kodituwakku informed Court of Appeal that he withdrew his petition as he felt that presidential polls scheduled for January 8, 2015 could be put off on the basis of his prayer.

Since the change of government Kodituwakku initiated several high profile cases including action against the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) over its failure to stop members of parliament selling super luxury vehicles imported on duty free facility made available by parliament, fraudulent appointment of National List MPs as well as alleged money laundering case involving former minister Ravi Karunanayake.

Between Neoliberalism and Authoritarian Populism

2017-09-04

The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 continues to ravage the world. The economic fallout is evident from the decline in global economic growth and tremendous decrease in international trade. The political consequences of the crisis in turn are shaping the emergence and consolidation of authoritarian populist regimes.  
Neo-liberal globalisation starting in the 1980s was centred on the push for free trade, free flow of capital, deregulation and privatisation. While global trade growth was double and even triple global economic growth in the 1990s considered the period of hyper globalisation, after the 2008 crisis, global trade growth is well below global economic growth. And if one is to look at the value, as opposed to volume, of global exports there is a tremendous absolute decline in recent years.   
Source: Gee Hee Hong, Jaewoo Lee, Wei Liao and Dulani Seneviratne. China and Asia in Global Trade Slowdown. IMF Working Paper, May 2016.  
Despite such falling levels of global trade, powerful right wing regimes and political forces around the world today are vocal against international trade and are making a strident call for protectionism. They blame their economic woes on minorities including immigrants for the loss of jobs and international imports for declining production in their countries.  
Does the 2008 crisis signify the end of neo-liberalism and the emergence of a new era of authoritarian populism? Or is it a shift in the workings of neo-liberal global capitalism embracing the politics of authoritarian populism?   

Authoritarian regimes

The regimes of Trump in the US, Putin in Russia, Modi in India and Erdogan in Turkey are characteristic of authoritarian populism. Their disregard for liberal democratic norms betray their authoritarianism. Their xenophobic and racist rhetoric claiming to save their racial populations are symptomatic of populism. Such authoritarian populism is also on the rise with the major electoral gains of far right parties in Europe and other parts of the world.  
The concept of authoritarian populism, however, has been around for decades. Stuart Hall, the prominent Marxist cultural critic, deployed the concept of authoritarian populism to analyse the shift in British politics with the rise of Margaret Thatcher in the late 1970s. Hall’s critical writings were a response to the major political economic changes with the global economic downturn at that time and the challenges that emerged for leftist politics with the decisive political turn to the right.  
Hall recognised the contradictions between the ideological claims of Thatcherism and its programmes that purportedly sought to solve the structural economic crisis. Hall pointed out that Thatcherism would not solve the economic crisis nor achieve economic stability. However, Hall also recognised the dangerous ideological drift to the right, and that economic factors alone were not going to determine the fortunes of the right wing regime. He called on the left to build durable historic alliances among white workers, black workers and feminists, who were all devastated by the dismantling of the social welfare state, attacks on trade unions and racist “law and order” policies.  
Interestingly, Hall deployed the concept of authoritarian populism, at the very moment in the late 1970s, which we now consider the beginning of the neo-liberal era. Indeed, the early movers of the neo-liberal project in the late 1970s into the early 1980s, such as Thatcher in the UK, Reagan in the US, Pinochet in Chile, and for that matter Jayewardene in Sri Lanka, were authoritarian in their approach to reshaping the economy. In taking forward capitalist class interests of expanding markets and increasing profits after the major economic downturn in the 1970s, these regimes used repressive state power to crush trade unions and peoples movements opposed to neo-liberal policies dismantling social welfare.   

Dual challenge

In Sri Lanka as in much of the world now, we are trapped between accelerating neo-liberal policies and authoritarian populism. While the far right UNP agenda is pushing for neo-liberal policies at any cost, the Rajapaksa regime is attempting to return through populist mobilisations with the support of a section of the SLFP and chauvinist forces.  
The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government is expanding on the Rajapaksa regime’s neo-liberal projects such as the privatisation of education and healthcare evident from their defence of SAITM, the massive infrastructure projects such as Hambantota port and the Port City, and financialisation with the international financial centre for which support was negotiated with the Asian Development Bank years ago. While the Rajapaksa regime intimidated and attacked trade unions and peoples’ movements with its show of authoritarian and even militarised power, the current Government’s ideological and physical attacks draw on its unconditional commitment towards market expansion.  
In this context, the remnants of the Rajapaksa regime in turn hope to ride the wave populism in other parts of the world. They are trying to channel the rising economic discontent into an authoritarian populist project with a reinvented Rajapaksa regime as the national saviours of a declining Sri Lanka.  
Neither neo-liberalism nor authoritarian populism can provide solutions to capitalist crises. Rather, they use different means and mechanisms to reinforce an economy that only sharpens class inequalities in society, where the rich get richer and others get poorer. Neo-liberalism seeks to change social relations towards individualisation and deploys the ideology of individual responsibility, and uses state power to repress any form of collective resistance by the marginalised in society. Authoritarian populism in turn deflects attention from class oppression by finding scape goats among minorities and through xenophobic hate politics that even provoke violence.  
For the neo-liberal ideology of free trade, globalisation and individual responsibility, the authoritarian populist ideology substitutes protectionism, economic nationalism and blames minorities and immigrants. But neither challenges global finance capital central to accumulation by contemporary capitalism and also the cause of repeated and deepening economic crises.   

Trump’s brinkmanship

Addressing capitalist crises requires structural change to the economic system. But even the US with all its imperial power could not shift its policies despite the tremendous shock of the 2008 crisis. The economic instability at the core of the capitalist system contributes to political instability. The neo-liberal handling of the 2008 crisis paved the way for Trump with his racist and xenophobic populist project.  
In this context, Trump as expected, has done nothing to address the financial crisis including the possibilities of such future crises in the US economy. While Trump has stuck to his promise and refused to take forward the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic trade pacts, he refrains from questioning financialisation and the international flows of finance capital. In fact, instead of challenging Wall Street responsible for the crisis of 2008 and deepening inequalities in the US, his administration is packed with financiers.  
As with Trump’s support for white supremacists, his economic nationalism, is also geared towards mobilising a right wing social base to ensure his populist power. Trump’s brinkmanship will not address the economic problems in the US, and is even undermining US imperial power, but in the process Trump is tearing apart American society and likely to create tremendous international turmoil including further violence and even wars.   

Equality

In this context, the challenge before progressive forces, such as trade unions, co-operatives and social movements, is to simultaneously oppose both neo-liberalism and authoritarian populism. But opposition alone will not do, and an alternative programme to build broad progressive alliances and the basis for ideological struggle are urgently needed.  
One important platform for such an alternative is the demand for equality. That is an ideological struggle for equality that challenges class, gender, ethnic, religious, caste and other inequalities.  
Taking equality seriously means not just liberal lip service about equality before the law. Rather, powerful mobilisations against the neo-liberal economic processes of individualisation and dispossession as well as countering populist attacks against minorities and “outsiders”.  
Equality means little without economic democracy, where people are assured of free healthcare, free education, food and shelter including through food subsidies and public housing. It also means decent work for a decent life. Equality requires active redistribution to reduce income and wealth inequality, including progressive taxation with wealth taxes, property taxes and welfare entitlements.  
Neo-liberalism with its push for individualised responsibility, where the state plays no role except to create business friendly conditions in the interests of capital, is best captured by Thatcher’s famous quote, “There is no such thing as society.” With authoritarian populism, capital’s agenda continues but with the idea of there is only one society; a homogeneous, mono-ethnic or racist society. Society in its plural form and with responsibility towards the social and economic lives of all people must be defended and strengthened, and that would benefit from a radical conception of equality.   

Legal action against Mahinda over unbearable debt!

*I saved Mahinda from the electric chair-MS
*Video: Ex-CJ says if not for his order Mahinda won’t be President today

Sep 03, 2017

Reliable sources say UNP legal experts are considering taking legal action against former president Mahinda Rajapaksa on the charge of trapping Sri Lanka on a huge debt crisis.

Mahinda to be arrested over financial misadministration charge?

The presidential immunity against prosecution under the constitution was nullified by the 19th amendment and a president could be taken to court for wrongdoing committed during his/her tenure, the legal experts say.

The sources say they will hand over a related report and discuss it with justice minister Thalatha Athukorale next week, after which they will hold talks with Attorney General Department’s senior officials.

Almost projected revenue to go to pay back debt!

The state’s projected revenue for the year 2018 through tax amendments and other avenues will not exceed Rs. 2,200 billion. However, Rs. 1,900 billion is needed in the year to pack back the loans and the interest obtained during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.

Furthermore, Rs. 1,400 billion is needed to pay salaries and overtime payments of state employees, and capital expenditure stands at Rs. 700 billion, including Rs. 385 billion for road development.

Finance ministry reports say Rs. 1,800 billion will have to be borrowed to cover the projected expenditure for 2018. Since the borrowings mature in 2019, a bigger borrowing is needed in that year, taking the country to a serious economic crisis, according to economists.

HR groups in South America dog Gen. Jayasuriya While Prez Sirisena pleads ignorance of war crimes, lawsuits being filed

BY SHIVANTHI RANASINGHE-2017-09-04

At a media briefing on 30 August 2017, Maithripala Sirisena swore he was ignorant of war crimes lawsuits filed against former Army Commander General Jagath Jayasuriya. Human Rights groups in South America alleges that the former Army Commander oversaw military units that attacked hospitals and killed, disappeared and tortured thousands of people in the latter phase of our war against terrorism. Sirisena's standard cheeky response that he too found about it from the newspapers is too absurd even to comment.

Perhaps it's the very reason why he uses the excuse, even if it portrays him as a puppet without responsibilities or accountability.

Sirisena rather be ridiculed than answer the simple question as to why General Jayasuriya is facing war crime charges. After all, he claimed he protected the dignity of our war heroes. It was he, he proudly pronounced, that saved his arch enemy Mahinda Rajapaksa from the electric chair.

If that is indeed the case, then General Jayasuriya should be able to complete his diplomatic mission and return home with dignity.

When this is not the case, then it is obvious that the Sirisena-led government did not restore the dignity of our officer. The fact that this lawsuit is filed by South American lawyers is a stronger indicator that the world is not a friendlier place despite this government's claims that we have re-aligned our international relations.

The interest shown by the South American lawyers is very interesting. Jayasuriya is the ambassador to Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina and Suriname. As such, he enjoys diplomatic immunity. Yet, it is these lawyers' intentions to pressurize the regional governments to open investigations, remove his immunity and expel him.

Their determination is interesting because South America had nothing to do with our war against terrorism. In fact, in 2009 the Latin countries were very much in support of Sri Lanka and voted against the U.S. backed resolution. Only Argentina abstained. Today, it is a totally different scenario.
The answer Sirisena is reluctant to give is that the charges against General Jayasuriya are simply a consequence of the 2015 Geneva resolution this government co-sponsored with "much appreciation". This resolution contains the recommendations made by Zeid Al-Hussein, the incumbent United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner.

On 28 September 2015, he recommended the application of the principle of Universal Legal Jurisdiction. Despite 30 years of brutality by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, this only applies to Sri Lankan security forces allegedly responsible for international humanitarian and human rights law violations during the 2006-2009 war against terrorism. At the 2017 sessions, he reiterated his recommendation.

pursued by lawsuit

It is in this backdrop that General Jayasuriya is being pursued by a lawsuit. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka has as usual added to the drama by his rhetoric that he will not be protecting war criminals. To the media he explains that General Jayasuriya was never commander material and he strongly recommended to the then President and Defence Secretary not to make him the next Sri Lanka Army Commander.

While categorically accusing General Jayasuriya of committing war crimes, he also stresses that the total control of the Vanni operations were in Field Marshal Fonseka's hands. All General Jayasuriya did as the Vanni Security Force Commander was see to the logistics, stated Field Marshal Fonseka.
General Jayasuriya was responsible for providing logistics as food, uniforms, medical supplies, removing the wounded and protecting the prisoners. As such, the division commanders were not under General Jayasuriya's authority.

In this respect, Field Marshal Fonseka's statement is true. Though he did not go beyond Vanni throughout the heavy fighting, Field Marshal Fonseka was at the Vanni Headquarters once a week. There, he met every division commander to check the progress of the war. Each commander would then brief their commander and after discussions, he would give directions to his team. Through his directions, he communicated his intention such as the area that needs to be out of terrorist infestation.
The division commander in turn would request the additional resources he needs. It was the responsibility of General Jayasuriya to supply accordingly.

On average, Field Marshal Fonseka would call all division commanders at least three times a day – morning, noon and evening for a status update. However, on days when battles were particularly intense, the calls increased as much as 15 or more. Thus, he was well aware of what was taking place in the Vanni theatre and he always maintained his position as the direct commander.

General Jayasuriya on the other hand had no direct command responsibility. His role was to provide service support and ensure that the fighting forces had the ammunition, vehicles, and lubricants for the vehicles as well as the list Field Marshal Fonseka mentioned.

Many regarded General Jayasuriya as being sidelined from a more exciting role. However, in truth his strength was in staff work and was meticulous in maintaining correspondence. As a young Lt. Colonel, he played an excellent role as the liaison officer to coordinate between the Sri Lankan Army, Navy, Air Force and the Defence Ministry.

He was also in the battlefront during the Vanni Jayasikuru operations. However, within a very short time he was caught in an explosion that gravely injured him. After that, he returned back to a desk job.

Hence, during the war, there was little to suggest that there was much friction between Field Marshal Fonseka and General Jayasuriya. Both were playing the part supported by their natural strengths. The friction appears after the conclusion of the war.

By 2009, the U.S. government changes and was no longer a republic regime. Though the same diplomatic community remained as in the U.S. Ambassador Robert Blake, they were no longer the supportive group. Instead, they played a pivotal role in convincing Field Marshal Fonseka to decamp the Rajapaksa administration.

Naturally, tensions were building between Fonseka and the Rajapaksa administration. There was a strong indication that Gen. Fonseka will corporate with the U.S. authorities in a manner detrimental to Sri Lanka. He was thus promoted as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS).

To the civilian, CDS seems a prestigious position. In reality, it is to maintain the liaison between the three forces and the defence ministry. It is a position without power, resources, command, responsibility or accountability.

To one such as Fonseka who enjoyed all the perks and power that comes with the position of Army Commander, this was a terrible demotion. It angered him greatly.

When Gen. Fonseka had his absolute downfall, Jayasuriya was appointed the Army Commander. Thus, it was while Jayasuriya was the commander, Gen. Fonseka was arrested and court-martialled. In his own way, he holds Jayasuriya responsible. Perhaps it was salt on Gen. Fonseka's wounded pride as well when Jayasuriya was claimed to be the commander behind the Vanni victory by many within the military itself. The mistake Jayasuriya did was to accept the credit that was not his due. Ironically, it is that mistake that has boomeranged on him. With this government co-sponsoring the Geneva resolution, that in so many words aims to persecute the officers who contributed to the victory, Jayasuriya's name is on the list. He now accepts the real role he played. Yet, for four and a half years as the Army Commander and for two years as the Ambassador he allowed a role he did not play be established as his credentials.

It is interesting whether he can reverse it. Equally interesting is to note that those who are sanctimoniously making such serious allegations have not even got their facts correct. The bigger picture though is that for FM Fonseka a situation has come to settle an old score with the man who allowed him to be court-martialled.

ranasingheshivanthi@gmail.com

Threat of international war crimes probe?

‘Fonseka to testify against Jayasuriya’

by Bandu de Silva-September 3, 2017, 12:00 pm 
Former Ambassador
bandudes@gmail.com

I refer to the news item in today’s The island (Saturday 2nd September 2017) and would like to comment on contracts on which non-career ambassadors are appointed by the Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry, to create public awareness in search of truth. I do so with my background as a former Director General and Ambassador and Director of Overseas Administration in the Foreign Ministry whose duties included preparation of contracts to be signed by non -career ambassadors, and also one who served with 12 heads of mission appointed on contract.

There is something fishy about the content of the local media reports. They speak of General Jayasuriya claiming he took up the post and assumed duties in August 2015 for a term of two years. In June, this year he wrote to the then Foreign Secretary that his tenure had been completed and if he was to be re-appointed as an Ambassador, he wanted to be posted to an Asian country.

General Jayasuriya's was a non-career appointment. Therefore, the appointment would have been necessarily, based on a contract signed with the Foreign Ministry. For long years the usual period of appointment under a contract has been three years. Earlier, it had been four years but this was changed.

There has been no case of any head of mission on contract being posted for a lesser number of years at his request or terminating the appointment except in a single case, i.e. of Wilmot Perera, first Ambassador to China, who requested the termination of contract after six months. The contract contained a clause that the appointee should pay cost of damages if the contract was terminated by him/her before the expiry date. The govt could, of course, terminate a contract early for political reasons on a new govt taking office.

The case of Neville Jansz, High Commissioner in Australia, and Earnest Perera, former I.G.P, who was appointed High Commissioner in Malaysia, fall into this category. There were others who were recalled to be appointed to other posts.

This was the general policy and pattern. There is no evidence that this policy was changed to accommodate General Jayasuriya. In the present case, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson has said the Ambassador returned on termination of contract. Isn't there something fishy here, the F/O too stepping in to confirm the retired General's version? 

The statement attributed to the Ambassador shows that he envisaged an extension of his contract (presuming it was two years) or another posting to an Asian country. Why is this preference for an Asian country? Was it because of the feeling that he would be safe there against growing allegations? Can it be because he wanted to visit his son in Hong Kong and daughter in Australia? Too fragile a thought! Will he get easy access to Australia with the allegations against him coming up?

The Ambassador has said that on July 10, he received a reply saying the completion of the tenure had been approved and he had been asked to return before August 31. This is unusual if the contract was for two years and it was ending. The words 'completion of the tenure of the contract' seems to let the cat out of the bag. What is there to approve if the contract ended? If the ‘completion’ had to be approved by the Foreign Ministry that must be a termination before the expiry of the contract.

The Ambassador has sought to prove that he did not know that allegations were being made against him by a lawyer in Brazil, in which a request has been made to the Federal police to launch an investigation against the Sri Lankan Ambassador, to deprive his diplomatic immunity and declare him a 'persona non grata' in the event the Sri Lankan government refused to cooperate with the investigation. We have only the Ambassador's version that he did not know of such a thing while he was still the Ambassador, a position which can be deemed to be supported by the Sri Lankan Foreign Office when it says he returned on termination of the contract. 

Yasmin Sooka, executive director of the International Truth and Justice Project, formerly a member of Darusman’s team, said in London that they believed that Jayasuriya had been tipped off about plans for the suits and fled. "We discovered by tracking him that in fact by 10:00 last night he had reached Dubai," said Sooka. "That means that he took a direct flight from Brazil to Dubai and he made sure that he didn't cross any of the other countries like the US, the UK. or Europe where he could potentially have been picked up." Sooka is not fond of Sri Lanka and is bent on a witch hunt.

The question arises if the Brazilian government knew of moves against the Ambassador and advised him to leave Brazil immediately to avoid an unpleasant diplomatic situation. Reuter observes that the nations where Jayasuriya was ambassador have their own dark histories of violence including military dictatorships, torture and the killing or disappearance of thousands. Where else? Except Brazil?

There seems to be a big cover-up including the involvement of the Foreign Ministry in Colombo and Brazilian authorities. 

Dr. Rajasingham Narendran Passes Away

SEPTEMBER 3, 2017

Dr. Rajasingham Narendran, one of our columnists and an active commentator in Colombo Telegraph comments section has passed away peacefully on 2nd September 2017 in Colombo.

Dr. Rajasingham Narendran

Dr. Rajasingham Narendran was a Veterinarian who holds a Ph.D from the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada in Applied Physiology and Endocrinology. Has served as an Assistant Lecturer and  Lecturer at the University of Peradeniya, Research Associate at the University of Guelph and Associate Professor at the King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, he has served for many years as a Senior Executive in the food industry in Saudi Arabia.

He is a son of Late Canagaratnam Rajasingham and Late Florence Ariamalar,

Beloved Husband of Vasanthi (Sri Lanka),

Loving Father of Balamurali (USA), Hari Muhunthan (Canada), Jegan Mayan (Sri Lanka), Mithila (Sri Lanka),

Loving Father-in-Law of Late Michele, Kim (Canada), Monika (Sri Lanka),

Devoted Grandfather of Makai (Canada), Kailan (Canada),

Loving Brother of Easamanohari (Canada), Late Manoharan, Selvi (UK), Neela (India), Jayadevan (UK) and Gowri (UK).

Remains lie at his home and cottage leaves at 3 pm Monday for cremation. Address: 66/20, Fortune Terrace, Kalalgoda road, Battaramulla.