Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

The Rohingya Are the New Palestinians

The plight of the Rohingya is a rare moment of global unity for Muslim countries. But will that be enough to save them?

The Rohingya Are the New Palestinians

No automatic alt text available.BY CRAIG CONSIDINE-SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

The systematic persecution of Palestinians has long occupied a place in the consciousness of the ummah, the global community of Muslims. Muslims worldwide have watched for decades as Palestinians have been repeatedly displaced, subjected to disproportionate collective punishment, and denied statehood.

While the Israeli occupation continues to stir up feelings of anger and powerlessness, another ethnic group — the Rohingya — is now emerging as the symbol of global injustice for Muslims. As Rashmee Roshan Lall notes in The Arab Weekly, the Rohingya are acquiring a status so far only given to the Palestinians. And the ummah is not sitting idly by.

The images of devastated villages and terrified Rohingya streaming into Bangladesh with nothing but the clothes on their backs resonates powerfully with the traumatic collective memory of the Palestinian Nakba, the “catastrophe,” when in 1948 Israeli forces expelled over 750,000 people from the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine. Muslims around the globe see the Palestinians and the Rohingya as having gone through similar experiences, being subject to flagrant abuses and pushed to the fringes of their respective societies. They are stateless, permanent refugees with few allies willing to officially stand up for their human rights.

Both groups became disenfranchised in the aftermath of colonial rule and imperial collapse, and both the Myanmar and Israeli governments have attempted to relocate them from their territory, portraying them as foreigners with no claim to the land. In both Israel and Myanmar, there have been attempts to rewrite the history of the two persecuted groups, claiming that neither constitute a “real” ethnic group and are thus interlopers and invaders.

Muslims also see a shared use of religious justifications for persecution. The Myanmar government empowers Buddhist nationalist factions promoting genocide against the defenseless Rohingya, while the Israeli government empowers Jewish nationalist factions promoting the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Ultranationalist Buddhists, such as Ashin Wirathu of the radical nationalist 969 movementbelieve “Muslims are like the African carp. They breed quickly and they are very violent and they eat their own kind. Even though they are minorities [in Myanmar], we are suffering under the burden [the Rohingya] bring us.” That’s echoed by the use of language describing Palestinians as “snakes” by figures such as far-right Israeli justice minister Ayelet Shaked, who has also declared that “[Palestinians] are all our enemies, and their blood should be on our hands.” Such reckless and shameful comments remind us that Islamophobia knows no bounds.

The Rohingya crisis has inspired an outburst of online activism. Twitter users are deploying hashtags like #WeAreAllRohingyaNow to raise awareness of the ongoing human rights violations and draw attention to businesses with ties to the Myanmar government. Meanwhile, Arab media has been flooding the airwaves with reports of the atrocities. Oraib Rantawi, of the Amman-based Al Quds Center for Political Studies, says the Rohingya are now taking priority over sectarian conflicts, whether Shiite vs. Sunni or Islamism vs. Secularism. As the Christian Science Monitor notes, the Rohingya have not been colored by the sectarian or political divides that afflict Muslims, making it a cause that transcends sectarian barriers.

Sectarian divides and deep-rooted animosities in the ummah are real enough, but the protests of a number of Muslim communities show that the Rohingya issue transcends the challenge of sectarianism. In solidarity with the Rohingya, tens of thousands of Muslims marched through the Russian region of Chechnya’s capital city, Grozny. In Jordan, two protests took placein the span of five days, including at the United Nations’ Amman headquarters. Dozens of Israeli Muslim Palestinians protested at the gates of the Myanmar Embassy in Tel Aviv, and hundreds of Muslim women demonstrated outside Myanmar’s embassy in Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia. Hundreds of Shiite Muslims also staged a protest rally after Friday prayers in Tehran.

While Muslims worldwide have been moved by the ethnic cleansing and forced exodus of the Rohingya, the responses from Muslim leaders and heads of state have been inadequate, at best. Neither the Arab League nor the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the world’s largest Muslim political body, has called for an emergency session.

There has been limited action and rather more talk: some Arab states have started sending aid and assistance to Rohingya refugees, while the Qatar Red Crescent Society has dispatched a team to set up mobile clinics and water tanks.

Seeking more action to defend the Rohingya, Iranian Second Deputy Parliament Speaker Ali Motahari called on Muslim-majority countries to raise a Muslim-led expeditionary force to go rescue the fleeing Rohingya. Iran’s chief rival — Saudi Arabia — tweeted its condemnation. “Acting upon [our] responsibility as leader of the Islamic Ummah, Saudi Arabia has called for a resolution to condemn the atrocities and human rights violations.”

But even these responses speak to division, as well as unity, among Islamic nations. Iran calls for aggressive direct action while Saudi Arabia calls for words of condemnation. Humanitarian action in Myanmar has become highly politicized as Islamic powers battle for supremacy over the ummah.

Turkish officials say President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has discussed the violence with Aung San Suu Kyi, who leads the Myanmar government, and said the issue was causing deep concern globally and especially in the “Muslim world.” Indonesian President Joko Widodo has called for an end to the persecution of Rohingya Muslims and sent his foreign minister to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi.

While the Saudi government did in fact reach out to the U.N. Security Council, critics have pointed to the kingdom’s deep financial and political ties in Myanmar as reasons why Saudi Arabia is not acting with more force to stop the plight of the Rohingya. The Christian Science Monitor noted that “Saudi Arabia has invested millions in Myanmar’s oil infrastructure, and it set to use a recently-completed oil pipeline running through the country to continue to provide China, the Myanmar government’s largest backer, with more than 10 percent of its oil supplies.”

To be fair to the Saudi kingdom, it has stepped up to assist the Rohingya. In recent years, the Saudis have opened their doors to 250,000 Muslims from Myanmar, offering them free residency permits, access to free education, health care, and employment — but often then treating them with the same hostility that other migrants find in Saudi Arabia.

One reason why the Rohingya issue has become so powerfully emotive is that the ummah sees a systematic bias in the way the media covers the plight of persecuted Muslim populations. Some Muslims around the globe believe the “terrorism” label is only applied to cases where the perpetrator is Muslim.

Indeed, research from Erin Kearns and her colleagues at Georgia State University show that when the perpetrators of violence are Muslim, the media covers the attack about four and a half times more than if the perpetrator was not Muslim. Put another way, as Kearns notes, “a perpetrator who is not Muslim would have to kill on average about seven more people to receive the same amount of coverage as a perpetrator who’s Muslim.”

The portrayal of Palestinians as a collectively terrorist population is common; in the case of the Rohingya, there has been a concerted effort by the Myanmar government to portray the victims as persecutors and “Bengali terrorists.” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others, has echoedthis language.

Muslims around the world also see Muslim-majority countries and “the West” as being too silent, if not complicit, in the face of ethnic cleansing. But it is worth noting that similar developments for other groups have barely made a ping on the radar. The Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking, mostly Muslim ethnic group based largely in Xinjiang province in western China, are a socially and politically oppressed people. The “Muslim world” has looked the other way as Chinese security forces foment anti-Uighur violence. Some saythat Muslim leaders are wary of damaging lucrative trade ties with Beijing or attracting attention to their own attitudes towards political dissent.

The Rohingya and Palestinians’ situations have become crises breaching sectarian divides. The persecution of both populations facilitates a rare outpouring of support and solidarity unseen in bitter sectarian conflicts in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. Here, the labels of Shiite and Sunni melt away as Muslims worldwide stand united in their desire for peace and humanity — in part, because they’re far away from the worst fault lines that divide the Islamic world.

We should also remember that this is not just a matter of religious fellow feeling for some Muslims, but also common humanity inspired by faith. The Islamic teachings of mercy, compassion, and justice call on followers of Islam to condemn the loss of innocent life, a point captured by the following verse of the Quran (5:32): “… Whoever kills a person unless for injustice in the land — it is as if he had slain the whole of mankind. And whoever saves a person — it is as if he had saved humanity.”

Millions and millions of Muslims worldwide defend human life regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

But for Muslims around the world, the plight of the Rohingya also bears a special resonance. They fear that another Nakba looms — and they, if not their leaders, are striving to prevent it, even if it may already be too late.

Photo credit: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

Trump pins blame on McCain as latest GOP health-care bill sinks


President Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Huntsville, Ala., last week. (Brynn Anderson/AP)

 
With the latest Republican plan to overhaul the Affordable Care Act collapsing, President Trump focused his ire Monday night on Sen. John McCain, distributing a video that showed the Arizona Republican on board with the mission in the past.

“A few of the many clips of John McCain talking about Repealing & Replacing O’Care,” Trump said in a tweet that accompanied the video. “My oh my has he changed-complete turn from years of talk!”
A few of the many clips of John McCain talking about Repealing & Replacing O'Care. My oh my has he changed-complete turn from years of talk!

As of Monday night, three senators — including McCain — had voiced opposition to the pending legislation, all but ensuring its defeat. Republicans can only afford to lose two GOP votes if they are to pass the bill without any Democratic support.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) became the latest to announce her intentions to vote against the bill, joining McCain and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

< Senate Republicans are trying to revive the momentum to overhaul the Affordable Care Act with the Cassidy-Graham proposal. Here are five things to know about the plan and the rush to pass it. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Trump seemed most upset about McCain’s role in sinking what has been a priority for Republican lawmakers for years.

During a radio interview earlier in the day, Trump called McCain’s opposition “a tremendous slap in the face to the Republican Party.”

“You can call it what you want, but that’s the only reason we don’t have it, because of John McCain,”

Trump said during a call-in to the “Rick & Bubba Show,” a syndicated radio program based in Alabama that airs across the South.

In a long written statement Friday, McCain said he “cannot in good conscience” vote for the bill written by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), taking issue with the hurried process leaders have used to move the measure ahead.

Vegetative-state patient responds to therapy

Brain scan
Tests show the man's brain activity before (L) and after (R) the treatment

BBCBy Michelle Roberts-26 September 2017

A man in France has regained some degree of consciousness after being in a vegetative state for 15 years.

Doctors treated the 35-year-old, injured in a car accident, with an experimental therapy that involved implanting a nerve stimulator into his chest.

Within a month, he could respond to simple instructions, turning his head and following an object with his eyes.

Experts say the results are potentially very exciting, but need repeating.
Vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) may not work as effectively in patients with different patterns of brain damage.

But Angela Sirigu, from the Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod, in Lyon, said it had chosen a really challenging patient to try the treatment out on.

The vagus nerve connects the brain to many parts of the body and helps control automatic or subconscious functions, including alertness and wakefulness.
Graphic showing how electrical impulses are sent to vagus nerve
After one month of vagal nerve stimulation, the patient's mother reported he had an improved ability to stay awake when listening to his therapist reading a book.

And brain scans reflected this improvement, Current Biology journal reports.
He also started responding to "threat".

For instance, when the doctor's head suddenly approached the patient's face, he reacted with surprise, opening his eyes wide.

Ms Sirigu said: "Brain plasticity and brain repair are still possible even when hope seems to have vanished.

"After this case report, we should consider testing larger populations of patients.

"This treatment can be important for minimally conscious patients by giving them more chances to communicate with the external world."

Dr Vladimir Litvak, from The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, at University College London's Institute of Neurology, said: "This might be an interesting new lead, but I would suggest to be cautious about these results until they are reproduced in more patients.

"It is hard to know based on a single case how likely this treatment is to work in the general patient population."

Vegetative state

  • A vegetative state is when a person is awake without signs of awareness; they may open their eyes, wake up and fall asleep at regular intervals and have basic reflexes; they can also regulate their heartbeat and breathing without assistance
  • A person in a vegetative state does not show any meaningful responses, such as following an object with their eyes or responding to voices; they also show no signs of experiencing emotions
  • A continuing - or persistent - vegetative state is when this happens for more than four weeks
  • A permanent vegetative state is defined as more than six months if caused by a non-traumatic brain injury, or more than 12 months if caused by a traumatic brain injury such as a blow to the head
  • If a person is in a permanent vegetative state, recovery is extremely unlikely but not impossible
Source: NHS Choices

Ongoing UNHRC session: What’s in store for Sri Lanka?


Featured image courtesy President’s Media Division

SUNANDA DESHAPRIYA-on 

The term ‘painfully slow progress’ has become a standard descriptor for Sri Lanka’s overall pace of implementation of UNHRC resolution A/HRC/30/1  in Geneva. It has been two years since Sri Lanka cosponsored the resolution “Promoting democracy, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka” pledging in the meantime to implement a comprehensive Transitional Justice (TJ) process. Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister at the time, Mangala Samaraweera even engaged with hardline Tamil diaspora representatives and other groups at a side event held at the Palais des Nations. The pledges made so eloquently then by Samaraweera remain in the air today.

The wave of hope this Government seemed to inspire when first elected into power seems to be gone. Frustration and complaints are taking over both the formal and informal discussions at the UN Human Rights Council. Though in general there remains a soft corner for Sri Lanka, due to its readiness to be accountable and democratic, this goodwill seems to be eroding.

At the ongoing 36th session there is no agenda item on Sri Lanka. But in the first few days, a number of countries have already referred to Sri Lanka’s human rights situation following the strong statement made by High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.

High Commissioner Zeid’s indirect warning during his opening statement to the effect that ‘the absence of credible action in Sri Lanka to ensure accountability for alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law makes the exercise of universal jurisdiction even more necessary,’ shows the level of frustration.  The High Commissioner also called for a time bound action plan for the implementation of transitional justice process in Sri Lanka.

The main movers of UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka since 2011, the US, UK and EU, urged Sri Lanka to implement commitments it made under resolutions 30/1 ( 2015) and 34/1 (2017) while commending the recent steps towards establishing the Missing Persons Office, within the first week of HRC 36.

At a side event held on 19th September Prof Alfred de Zayas, the UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order reportedly spoke of the right to Tamil self-determination.  A new breed of radical, young and enthusiastic Tamil diaspora activists have taken over the advocacy at the council, while seasoned and moderate individuals have left the scene.

 They are providing a platform for nationalist movements, fighting for self-determination in many parts of the world.  The vast majority of the Sri Lankan Tamil human rights defenders attending the 36th session of the Human Rights Council have close ties with the Tamil Civil Society Forum, for instance, while pro TNA advocates are almost absent in comparison.

The Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff, told the Council that he is ‘delighted to announce that the Government of Sri Lanka has invited [him] for an official visit to the country from 10 to 23 October 2017’. He has not received invitations from many countries to which he has requested visits. Soon after his visit, a mission from the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention will visit Sri Lanka in mid-December.  According to informal sources, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye too will visit Sri Lanka in early 2018.

This is one area in which Sri Lanka has scored points in the human rights field during last two years.  Under the Rajapaksa regime, UN Special Rapporteurs were not welcome. There were 8 pending requests by Special Rapporteurs to visit Sri Lanka by the time the new coalition government came to power. Now there is a standing invitation for all UN Special Rapporteurs to visit the country. However, both sides always have to agree on timelines.

The issue is, as Human Rights Watch pointed out, although ‘Sri Lanka has invited several UN human rights experts to visit over the past two years and has given them free and unfettered access, the government has largely disregarded their recommendations.’  So the government has not been able to create a positive image as a result of those visits.

The soft spoken and eager to listen Pablo de Greiff is a Special Rapporteur with unquestionable credentials. He is a global authority on transitional justice.  Although this is his first official visit, he has been involved with Sri Lanka’s own process for some time now.  He is expected to raise concerns over continued occupation of land in the North by the militarydisappearances and political prisoners held under the PTA and urge the Government to effectively address these as a pre-condition for a successful transitional justice process. This has been Pablo’s publicly stated position.

Another pressing issue Pablo has to address are concerns raised over security sector reforms. The Government has agreed to implement these reforms, as a necessary step towards post-war reconciliation but no visible action has been taken so far. One of the proposed reforms is the replacement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) with a new Act, and this remains a mere illusion. According to Northern Province Chief Minister C V Wigneswaran, the military is holding 85,000 acres of land in the North and has 150,000 soldiers stationed there. Contradicting this, the Government report to the UN Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka contends that only ‘a total of 6051.36 acres of private land occupied by the military remain to be released.’

Pablo de Greiff and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention may submit their reports to the March session in 2018.  The way things stand now, there is no doubt that the reports will be critical, if not negative.

The 3rd circle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Sri Lanka will be held in two months’ time in Geneva. The UPR report too will be presented at the March 2018 session. In addition, High Commissioner Zeid will present a written update on the implementation of Council resolutions 30/1A and 34/1 at that session. His comprehensive and final report on the implementation of those resolutions will be in March 2019.

If the Sri Lanka Government continues to fail in its commitments to implement a comprehensive process which will address burning human rights issues, the frustrations being felt at the ongoing Human Rights Council session will start to snowball. The next Council session in March 2018 is going to be crucial for Sri Lanka. The signs of things to come can already be heard in the corridors of the Palais des Nations.

Sri Lanka continues in its endeavour to win international goodwill with words and invitations to UN officials. The latest expression of this process is President Sirisena’s meeting with rights commissioner Zeid in New York. As reported by the President’s media unit, Sirisena told Zeid that the government is moving forward in the fields of human rights and reconciliation step by step and Zeid’s diplomatic response was that he would be more satisfied if the journey of this Sri Lankan government would be speeded up.

We should expect Zeid to accept the offer made by Sirisena to visit Sri Lanka and see the progress achieved.  The Government’s objective seems to be to capture the moral high ground by inviting Zeid before he reports to the UNHRC on progress made by Sri Lanka on the transitional justice process. 

In any case, this invitation to Zeid by the president of Sri Lanka is a positive development and shows that the president is confident of implementing this process, at least to some extent.

Those who enjoyed this post might find “Disconnected: Juxtaposing the UNHRC sessions with protests in the North” and “UNHRC Resolution: To be viewed with objectivity” enlightening reads. 

The UN and Sri Lanka-China relations

68th Anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China 



article_image
By Sanja de Silva Jayatilleka-September 25, 2017, 8:26 pm

The 72nd UN General Assembly which President Maithripala is currently attending has already gained notoriety around the world, because unusually, one of its member states threatened to totally destroy another.

Ahead of it, on the 18th of September, President Sirisena joined other world leaders in adopting a Political Declaration for UN Reform "to initiate meaningful reform to make the UN a more effective and efficient organization." The new UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres pledged to overhaul the United Nations bureaucracy to make it more responsive to the people it serves.

While this is a welcome initiative by the new Secretary General, it is hoped that Reform of the UN does not remain limited to rationalizing its bureaucracy. The UN, as the premier multilateral organization in the world needs to be more democratized if it is to be representative of its members and therefore more effective.

That need became even more evident following the threat to annihilate North Korea. Several countries have been engaged in efforts to defuse tension in the Korean peninsula through diplomacy, which is the only safe track when one is dealing with a nuclear power. One wonders what went through the minds of the South Korean delegation!

The new Secretary General has his work cut out, aiding the member states to recall the role of the United Nations and its guiding spirit. It is hoped that strengthening the General Assembly is one of the reforms he has in mind to propose to the UN member states.

As China celebrates its 68th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic, it is useful to recall its views on UN reforms. Despite its privileged position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it has often expressed its desire to make UN decision making more inclusive. China has learnt from its long history that "a wise man changes his ways as circumstances change" as the Chinese saying goes, and that "the ocean is vast because it is fed by many rivers", to quote Chinese President Xi Jinping.

China has called for regional representation at the UN Security Council (UNSC) and closer links between the UNSC and the UN General Assembly (UNGA) "to have more small and medium sized countries… to have more input into the decision making of the UNSC". The Human Rights Council, a late addition to the UN system has adopted the model of regional representation for its membership. This is achieved by a rotational Presidency and 4 regional Vice Presidencies and regular elections for membership of the Council based on equitable geographical representation, making the UN Human Rights Council representative of the peoples of the world.

On September 4, 2017, at the ninth BRICS Summit held at Xiamen International Conference Center, President Xi Jinping said, "we need to make the international order more just and equitable. Our ever closer ties with the rest of the world require that we play a more active part in global governance. Without our participation, many pressing global challenges cannot be effectively resolved." China sees engagement with global governance as the duty of an emerging power.

For a few years, under President George W. Bush, the United States refused to participate at the UNHRC. When it decided to contest for a place, it was promptly elected. However, US Ambassador Nicky Haley declared at her press conference in New York last Friday that they had made their views very clear at the meeting on Human Rights Reform that they were not happy at "the quality of countries" elected to the UNHRC, and if things didn’t change, they would pull out. The US participation is clearly conditional.

The thing is, member states are elected to the Human Rights Council by a vote of the General Assembly in New York where all 193 member states are represented. There is no way around democracy of that sort. One cannot demand to have only the states one approves of in the Council. Staying in and negotiating a better world is considered more useful than storming off.

This is not the only time that the US threatened to pull out during the first week at the UNGA this month. It also threatened to pull out of the Iran Nuclear deal. That deal was painstakingly negotiated in 2015 by several countries (all five permanent members of the UNSC: US, China, Russia, Britain and France, plus Germany and a representative of the EU, and Iran), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna has confirmed repeatedly that Iran was not in violation of any of its provisions. US Secretary of State admitted at the UN that Iran "is in technical compliance with the agreement", and cited its "destabilizing activities" in the Middle East as a reason for the threat to exit the nuclear agreement. None of the other signatories support this position.

Unilateral action of this sort is hardly an example to follow. And yet, according to the Sunday Times (Colombo), the new edition of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) open for signature last week, the first multi-lateral disarmament treaty in more than two decades, has not been signed by Sri Lanka. It asks editorially "The questions seem to be which super (nuclear) power or powers twisted our arm not to sign the treaty, or who were we trying to please." It hopes that this is "not a precursor to Sri Lanka’s departure from an independent foreign policy and signaling a dance to the tune of any one, or more foreign powers."

China’s view on the UN and multilateral diplomacy is consonant with the national interest of Sri Lanka. President Xi addressing the BRICS summit emphasized the importance of multilateralism:"We should remain committed to multilateralism and the basic norms governing international relations, work for a new type of international relations…" An earlier position paper from China on UN reform dealt with the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ declaring that "When a massive humanitarian crisis occurs, it is the legitimate concern of the international community to ease and diffuse the crisis. Any response to such a crisis should strictly conform to the UN charter and the opinions of the country and the regional organization concerned should be respected."

Given the coalitions we belong to, this view is congruent with Sri Lanka’s own view of its interests. Led by President Sirisena, the Sri Lankan delegation in New York is scheduled to participate in the Non-Aligned Movement Ministerial Meeting, the Informal Meeting of the SAARC Council of Ministers, the Ministerial Meeting of the Commonwealth, the Ministerial Meeting of the Asia Cooperation Dialogue and the Group of 77 meeting.

Sri Lanka-China relations

At the BRICSsummit, President Xi quoted an ancient Chinese saying which goes "A partnership forged with the right approach defies geographical distance; it is thicker than glue and stronger than metal and stone." This is very different to the saying, perhaps closer to reality and often quoted, that goes "In international relations, there are no friendships, there are only interests".

The first is an Asian aspiration, while the second is the hardnosed realism of the West. Sri Lankan leaders have often used phrases that indicate an affinity with the first perspective when they say that "India is like a relative, with cultural ties that go back thousands of years", or "we have had relationships with China since ancient times when we were an important post on the Silk Route". The inference is that those old, organic, civilizational ties should count for something.

Sri Lanka did have strong ties with both these countries without necessarily playing them off against each other. Indeed it was known to have good relationships with countries around the globe. A long war such as the one that we fought was bound to be globally polarizing to some degree. Even so, in its wartime first term the previous Sri Lankan government succeeded in handling international relations wisely, successfully negotiating political and military support in its fight against terrorist separatism through effective and sustained diplomatic engagement with the world. However,other mistakes saw even its closest neighbour applaud its exit. The successful handling of global diplomacy took a tumble in its second term and soon after, the government itself took a tumble.

The new (and current) government made its own mistake, starting well before it was elected. We will never as a country, be able to recover from that mistake until we admit it squarely. In its zeal to win the election, it sacrificed Sri Lanka’s vital national interests by repeatedly denigrating the large scale Chinese projects of enormous value, and promised to stop them if they were elected. The new team of politicians showed a distinct lack of maturity and pragmatism in trying to woo the West and India, unable to do so without damaging the relationship with the world’s biggest investor currently and for the foreseeable future.

Having stopped the Chinese projects, it overreached and had to eat humble pie.The 99 year lease of the Hambantota port was a direct consequence. Could Sri Lanka have managed its relationship with China better? Was the government left with no choice but to make those unpopular choices of sell offs and long leases?

In seeking a different trajectory for Sri Lanka, the new government has been unable to reconcile its need to align itself with the West with getting the best deal from a cash-rich China which has no reason to trust this government beyond a point. It has been left trying unsuccessfully to explain the deep trough it has got itself and the country into as a result.

Addressing the Boao Forum for Asia Annual conference in 2013, President Xi said in his keynote speech that "China cannot develop itself in isolation from the rest of Asia and the world. On their part, the rest of Asia and the world cannot enjoy prosperity and stability without China."It is hoped that Sri Lanka joins the rest of Asia in weaving this reality into their foreign policy calculations.

Civil War & The Quest For Transitional Justice In Sri Lanka


logo

Dr. Neil DeVotta
Mark SalterTo End a Civil War: Norway’s Peace Engagement in Sri Lanka (London: Hurst & Company, 2015). 512 pages.
Ahmed S. Hashim, When Counterinsurgency Wins: Sri Lanka’s Defeat of the Tamil Tigers (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013). 280 pages.
Samanth Subramanian, This Divided Island: Stories from the Sri Lankan Civil War (Gurgaon: Penguin Books, 2014). 336 pages.
In May 2009, Sri Lanka’s armed forces comprehensively defeated the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The day after the war ended, Sri Lanka’s then President Mahinda Rajapaksa told parliament that his soldiers achieved victory by “carrying a gun in one hand, the Human Rights Charter in the other, hostages on their shoulders, and the love of their children in their hearts.”[1] The LTTE had used the very Tamils it claimed to protect as human shields, and the nearly three-decades-long conflict ended with over 300,000 people fleeing the LTTE-controlled area to government-controlled areas. The military did assist these fleeing Tamils, and some, no doubt, were carried to safety on some soldiers’ shoulders.
But this was no humanitarian operation. If anything, it was akin to what happened in Grozny when the Russian army flattened that city while combating Chechnya’s rebels and to what is now [October 2016] taking place in Aleppo, Syria. For Sri Lanka’s military wiped out the LTTE without differentiating between combatants and innocent civilians, going so far as to deliberately shell hospitals and the government’s designated No Fire Zones.[2] And it thereafter killed and disappeared numerous LTTE personnel and supporters who had surrendered even as it sent over 10,000 LTTE cadres into rehabilitation programs. The consequences of such scorched earth counterterrorism are now playing out, with a new government claiming to pursue reconciliation and accountability with the Tamil minority even as it fends off allegations of war crimes from the international community.
The Failure to Secure Peace
Sinhalese politicians have long failed to accommodate legitimate Tamil grievances, thanks to demographics, political opportunism, and a strident Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism. Starting in the mid-1950s, Sinhalese politicians belonging to the two main parties, the United National Party (UNP) and Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), took turns trying to outdo each other on who could best protect and promote the interest of the Sinhalese Buddhists.[3] With Sinhalese numbering nearly 75 percent and Buddhists being around 70 percent, such ethnic outbidding became a sad feature of the island’s politics. The majoritarian mindset was—and is—also helped by a Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist ideology, which claimed that Sri Lanka is the island of the Sinhalese and chosen repository of Buddhism; Sinhalese Buddhists have been ennobled to preserve and propagate Buddhism; minorities live there thanks to Sinhalese Buddhist sufferance; and they must, therefore, respect the majoritarian ethos. Within this context those who promoted a political settlement with the LTTE or advocated for devolution were branded traitors.[4]
The LTTE leadership understandably believed that no Sri Lankan government was going to deliver on its promises. That said, the LTTE was not genuinely interested in a negotiated settlement either, and its leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, was enamored with securing eelam (a separate Tamil state) through military means. The LTTE had used previous ceasefires to regroup and rearm. In short, the group blatantly manipulated ceasefires to pursue war, not peace.
Prabhakaran may have been a superb military strategist early on, but throughout the conflict he appears to have had little understanding of geopolitics. At the very end, whatever acumen he possessed of military strategy also seems to have deserted him; for he not only misgauged the Sri Lankan military’s buildup and capabilities, he also cavalierly exposed tens of thousands of Tamils to death while hoping for an international intervention that was not forthcoming.
The quest and failure for peace is what Mark Salter’s book focuses on, and it is a most useful account that has been compiled using the views and recollections of the major players (Sri Lankan, Indian, Norwegian and to a lesser extent American and other politicians and diplomats). Whether Salter’s goal was to exonerate the Norwegians—who were derogatorily called “salmon-eating busy-bodies” by Sri Lankans who felt they were biased towards the LTTE—is debatable; but it is indisputable that ultimately the Norwegian-led peace process failed because Sri Lanka’s two combatants were unable and unwilling to compromise on a political settlement.
Salter’s account shows how the Mahinda Rajapaksa government encouraged the Norwegians, who were merely facilitators and were therefore limited in what they could orchestrate, to stay on even as it vilified their role so as to appease Sinhalese Buddhist sentiment. Prior to becoming president, Rajapaksa had also told the Norwegians that he was not averse to reaching an agreement with Prabhakaran.
Many forget that Mahinda Rajapaksa was initially reluctant to restart a full-scale war with the rebel group, although his government began reinforcing the military and encouraged soldiers to assert themselves immediately after it came to power. The initial hesitance to take on the LTTE at a time when he rebels were violating the ceasefire more often than Sri Lankan forces may have partly been due to the secret agreement Rajapaksa’s campaign reached with the rebels, which prevented Tamils in the areas they controlled from voting in exchange for a large payment. Since Tamils mainly vote for the UNP during presidential elections, their being barred from the polls allowed Rajapaksa to win narrowly.
Salter’s interviews also suggest that the LTTE leadership was looking for a way to cooperate during the height of the conflict, and this no doubt had to do with the massive losses the group was facing. Prabhakaran was on record saying that his cadres could shoot him if he ever settled for an arrangement short of eelam. He did not settle, but neither was he capable of using the LTTE’s military prowess to deliver an advantageous political arrangement for the long-suffering Tamils. Today Tamils are a broken, bitter, and hagridden people who are worse off because Prabhakaran dared to pick up a gun.
One of Samanth Subramanian’s interviewees claims that during the last days of the war Prabhakaran distributed copies of the Hollywood movie 300, which depicts a group of Spartans fighting to their deaths against the Persians. If true, this was to prepare his cadres for the certain death that awaited them. Such fanaticism ultimately led to between 40,000 and 70,000 Tamils killed during the latter phase of the war (although these numbers are highly disputed by the Sri Lankan government) and that included Prabhakaran, his wife, and three children.

Read More

No consensus on Constitutionccc-26-09-2017-18.jpg (600×350)

By Rathindra Kuruwita-2017-09-26

The interim report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly, which is mandated to Draft a Constitutional Proposal for Sri Lanka, which was presented to Parliament on Thursday (21) once again demonstrated how divided the Sri Lankan political parties, and society, are about fundamental matters.The lengthy addendum presented by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) detailing their objections to a number of issues, demonstrated that even the two constituents of the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) don't see eye to eye about what the Constitution should look like. Apart from agreeing on the fact that Sri Lanka should be a unitary state and that the electoral system should be a combination of First-Past-the-Post (FPP) and Proportional Representation (PR), it seems that the United National Party (UNP) and the SLFP have nothing in common regarding the most fundamental of issues.

However, even here the SLFP, despite the assurances that the nature of the State should be unitary, wanted the Constitution to have explicit provisions that prevent secession.

"It shall be incorporated in the Constitution that the declaration of or taking steps to declare any part of the country as a separate State by any Provincial Council, Authority or any person is an offence that carries severe punishment. The Constitution shall also enshrine legal provisions preventing expression and implementation of extremist ideas based on community or religion," the SLFP has proposed, which is included in the interim report.

When it comes to the elections, SLFP insists that it is of the opinion that 'a by-election shall be held if the seat of a member becomes vacant upon his death, resignation or disqualification.' However, the recently passed amendment to the laws governing Provincial Council elections, for the main part the brain child of the UNP, has given the power to fill the vacancy to the General Secretary of the Party.

Thus the proposal 'in the case of the seat of a Member elected directly by a constituency becoming vacant due to death, resignation or disqualification, the Party may nominate another candidate from the relevant list, without requiring a by-election;' which is the opposite of the SLFP position is likely to have come from the UNP.

Divide between political parties based on ethnicity

Another obvious fault-line could be seen between the political parties that represent the minorities and the majority. The SLFP, Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and Joint Opposition (JO) view devolution of power, the attempts to amend the laws pertaining to the National Flag, Anthem and the place of Buddhism with great scepticism.

The JO and JHU are even sceptical/hostile about the 55-Member Second Chamber, 45 drawn from the Provincial Councils (each PC nominating 5 Members of such PC on the basis of a Single Transferable vote), and 10 Members elected by Parliament. The JHU calls the Chamber a 'a waste of time and money; make the rule inefficient as well as difficult to achieve national, socio-economic and political goals and will not help fulfill any expected outcome,'.

On the other hand the TNA, All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC), Eelam People's Democratic Party (EPDP), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) have taken a more open racialist line, unlike the SLFP, JHU and JO who present a more national veneer, and are keen to ensure that the ethnic populations that form their political power are adequately represented. For example, the joint proposals by ACMC, EPDP, SLMC and TPA state that the Second Chamber of the Parliament must be based on ethnic lines with 18 Sinhalese, six Sri Lankan Tamils, Six Muslims and six Malayaha Thamils (upcountry Tamils). They also propose that one of the three vice presidents, appointed from Sri Lankan Tamil, Muslim and Malayaha Thamil communities (for all practical purposes) should head the Second Chamber, tilting the balance of power to the minority communities. I doubt this will go down well with the Sinhala people, who are 75% of the population. Meanwhile, the TNA expects to use the Second Chamber to thwart any attempt to roll back any possible dilution or taking back devolved powers from the provinces.

Powers of the President

It also seems that whether a political Party agrees to abolish the Executive Presidency is also determined by what ethnicity a Party represents, a notable exception being the JO whose electoral success depends on former President Mahinda Rajapaksa who will not be able to contest for the post of President again.

Moreover, the SLFP believes that 'the Executive's decisions taken, regarding national security or lands for security purposes, should not be challenged in any Courts'. This may not be viewed favourably by minority political parties, especially those representing the Northern Tamil community who are attempting to retrieve their lands taken over by the Army during the conflict with the LTTE.

Given that there should be some kind of consensus between all these forces, for the new Constitution to be an accepted document by the majority of Sri Lankans, it seems that there has to major compromises for the new Constitution to be passed. However, it is also likely that compromises will not be received well by significant number of the most motivated and vocal segments in all ethnicities making the Constitution making process an incredibly tricky and interesting one.

Rathindra holds an MSc in Strategic Studies from S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU, Singapore, and can be reached via rathindra984@gmail.com

The logic of postponing local elections


article_imageBy Jehan Perera- 

The passage of the Provincial Council Election Amendment Bill indicates that provincial council elections that were due by the end of this year will not take place any time soon. The original purpose of the amendment was to ensure that there should be at least 30 percent representation of women on party candidate lists. This was much acclaimed and no one publicly dissented or took the matter to courts. However, the salient feature of the new law after more amendments were made to it is to ensure that future elections to the provincial councils will be based on a mixed system of first-past-the-post and proportional representation. The government used the method of adding an amendment to an existing bill to circumvent any legal appeal to the courts as occurred in the case of the 20th Amendment to the constitution. The need to demarcate electorates for the first-past-the-post contests gives rise to the possibility of an extended time period for the new system to become operational.

The recourse to the courts can only be within one week of a bill being presented to Parliament. On July 10, 2017 the government gazetted the Provincial Council Elections (Amendment) Bill to increase the number of women representatives in Provincial Councils. The Bill sought to amend the Provincial Councils Elections Act, No. 2 of 1988. It made it binding on all political parties and independent groups to field at least 30 per cent female candidates in Provincial Council elections. However, when the Supreme Court declared, on September 19, that the 20th Amendment required a referendum the government decided to amend the Provincial Council Elections (Amendment) Bill. This has brought in the first-past-the-post electoral system along with the proportional system, and the additional dimension of changing the electoral system and thereby the delimitation of electorates.

If the delimitation of local government wards are to be taken as an example it will become clear that the process of delimitation of electorates for provincial council elections can take several months if not years. The local government elections have been in a state of suspended animation for over two years. The minister in charge has made frequent pledges of early elections but has not yet found it possible to deliver on them. The delimitation of wards was highly contested with different political parties having different cases to make with regard to obtaining a more advantageous position for their respective parties. Even after the local government election amendment was passed in Parliament, there still remain problems that are to be ironed out which means that the time frame for local government elections can continue to be increased. With the passage of the new law on provincial councils, postponing elections has become an option at the provincial council level also.

20TH AMENDMENT

The passage of the provincial council election amendment law came in the aftermath of the government’s failure to obtain the support of some of the provincial councils to approve the 20th Amendment to the constitution. It was in this context that the Supreme Court ruled that this bid to amend the constitution would not be acceptable unless passed by a 2/3 majority in parliament and also approved by the people at a referendum. The Supreme Court verdict was based on the reasoning, among others, that any delay in holding elections to the provincial councils was not permissible without a referendum as it would affect the sovereignty of the people. The 20th Amendment gave to the central government the power to set the date of the next provincial council election and to administer those whose terms had elapsed.

Although the government asserted that the main purpose of the 20th Amendment was to conduct all provincial council elections on a single date it also opened up the possibility of postponing the provincial council elections for two years. The proposed amendment gave the government the flexibility to conduct the next provincial council election not later than September 2019. Therefore, from a political perspective, the main feature of the 20th Amendment was the possibility to postpone elections for two years. In this perspective, it was the failure of the government to obtain the possibility to postpone the provincial council elections that led to it resorting to another option, which was to utilize the Provincial Council election amendment bill in a hurry.

If the government had not passed the provincial council election amendment bill before September 26 of this year, the day that the Sabaragamuwa provincial council finished its term, the power to decide on the elections to the Sabaragamuwa provincial council would have gone to the Elections Commission. If this had happened there might have been provincial council elections to this province and to two other provinces councils, the North Central and Eastern provincial councils, which also will be ending their terms soon. As a government that is based on an alliance of two traditionally rival parties, it would have been threatening to governmental unity if the two parties should contest each other at elections as rivals. Therefore, this can be construed as one key reason why the government has been determined to postpone elections for as long as possible.

JOINT SOLUTIONS

What is notable about the continued postponement of the local government elections for over two years is that these repeated postponements have not generated much visible public anger or antipathy against the government. On the one hand, this may be due to the local government institutions, and the politicians who run them, not being held in great public esteem. As the country experienced a change of government two years ago at the national elections held in 2015, most people seem be more interested to give the government an opportunity to deliver positive results instead of getting embroiled in elections for positions to elected bodies that cannot make much of a difference to their lives. A similar situation is likely to prevail in the case of the provincial council elections.

More than local government or provincial council elections, what people seem to be expecting from the government is that it delivers on the promises it made in 2015 at the presidential and general elections. Much was expected of the government when it won those elections. The unique feature of the government is that it is a coalition between two traditionally rival political parties. The initial performance of this bipartisan government has been low in terms of effective problem solving. But in recent months its performance has been improving with the anti-corruption process yielding significant results. Last week the government also tabled its report on constitutional reforms, which are also positive and have been well received by the minority and smaller political parties. These are priority concerns which could be jeopardized if local and provincial elections pit the coalition partners against each other.

The central challenge to the government today is to make the best use of the opportunity that the UNP-SLFP coalition has brought with it. These two parties have governed the country for the past six decades. They have done so in turns. Each of them in opposition has generally opposed what the other proposed in government, particularly in regard to the ethnic conflict, which had disastrous consequences. As a result the country got embroiled in three decades of war, human losses and lost economic opportunities. The unique opportunity that the country now has is that these two parties are in government together. The task before these two parties is to make certain that they stay together to ensure that they resolve those problems that they have not been able to iron out on their own, and resolve them together. The postponement of local and provincial elections can only be justified on this basis.