Pakistan Is Inviting Its Favorite Jihadis Into Parliament

It might seem like the Pakistani military is trying to defang its ostensible adversaries. It's really trying to empower them.

BY MEMPHIS BARKER-OCTOBER 4, 2017

The notorious jihadi Hafiz Saeed has apparently had a change of heart. Like many extremists in Pakistan, the 67-year-old firebrand used to rage against democracy. But earlier this month a new political party, controlled in all but name by Saeed — the leader of the militant organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the alleged mastermind of a string of horrific massacres in India, including the killing of 166 people in Mumbai nine years ago — peacefully contested its first by-election for national parliament.

Bearded party workers from the Milli Muslim League wandered the streets of Lahore in hi-visibility jackets. Posters of Saeed were plastered across the city, in direct contravention of a ruling by the Election Commission, which does not recognize the MML as a party. The candidate backed by the MML, Yaqoob Sheikh, himself designated a terrorist by the U.S. Treasury in 2012, notched up an unexpectedly high 5 percent of the vote for the former National Assembly seat of recently ousted prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. (A further 6 percent went to another new Islamist party, the Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan, founded to cherish the legacy of a man who was hanged for the murder of a senator campaigning for reform of the country’s strict blasphemy laws.)

Why have bloodthirsty, anti-democratic groups suddenly chosen to enter the world of politics — and how have they been allowed to operate so openly? For the answer, look to Pakistan’s army. Earlier this year, according to Muhammad Amir Rana of the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, the military held successful talks with several “banned organizations” over a deradicalization strategy that would, in theory, see them drop their AK-47s and pick up clipboards.

Well-meaning supporters of the strategy argue that not all extremists can be killed or locked up. Some point to the IRA in Ireland or Islamist radicals in Indonesia as proof that political engagement can defang terrorist groups. Others ask why the political transition now seen as the inevitable path of the Afghan Taliban should not also apply to Pakistan’s own jihadis.

But deradicalization is tricky at the best of times, and the conditions that made it work elsewhere in the past simply don’t apply to Pakistan today. Most of all, it needs a state willing to threaten nonstate actors with something they would rather avoid (a military offensive) while proffering the reward of something they want (political influence). In Pakistan, neither condition is fulfilled. In fact, the “mainstreaming” project appears just as likely to strengthen jihadi militants as quell them — and you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder whether that isn’t really the point.

By global standards, the Pakistani army is large, well equipped, and well disciplined. But it’s next door to India, a foe three times its size, which has beaten it soundly in every conflict the two have ever had. That leaves the military willing to resort to the darkest methods to even the score.

The army has been chasing the possibility of a “good Taliban” for decades — starting with the Afghan Taliban itself, sponsored and supported by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence. The main reason that Lashkar-e-Taiba and its charitable front, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, survive under Hafiz Saeed’s leadership is that as far as the military is concerned, they’re the good jihadis.
Lashkar-e-Taiba has never carried out an attack within Pakistan — at least one that’s made the press. Rather, it has served as a proxy for the military in its asymmetric war with India, particularly in the disputed territory of Kashmir. According to David Headley, one of the Lashkar-e-Taiba members involved in the 2008 attack on Mumbai, the ISI provided “financial, military, and moral” support for the operation.

The army proved how effective it can be in a recent sustained assault on the jihadis it doesn’t like — those who carry out attacks within the nation. A crackdown in the northeastern tribal areas came as a furious reply to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s 2014 massacre at a school in Peshawar. Deaths from terrorism have since fallen by two-thirds.

But none of the circumstances that have historically shielded Lashkar-e-Taiba from a similar military crackdown have changed — in fact, some of them have become more entrenched. The belligerent tone of Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, has fuelled the military’s hard-wired belief that it must retain all its assets in the 70-year-old conflict.

Meanwhile, the ever-expanding charitable works of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which the armed forces have supported by granting it permission to work in parts of the country that international nongovernmental organizations and other local organizations cannot reach, have softened public opinion. A popular actor congratulated Hafiz Saeed after the Lahore by-election, praising him as a “righteous man.” While much of Pakistan’s civilian elite share the condemnatory line of its English-language newspapers, read by 2 percent of the population, the broader public tends to a less harsh view. Just 36 percent of the population holds an unfavorable opinion of Lashkar-e-Taiba, compared to 60 percent for the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, according to a 2015 Pew survey.

If the army has no clear incentive to wholly “deradicalize” Lashkar-e-Taiba at this point in time, it has more than enough to present its old strategic asset as newly defanged in order to ward off international pressure. America has reduced its aid to Pakistan for housing, in the words of U.S. President Donald Trump, “the very terrorists who we are fighting.” Allies closer to home have recently shown signs of losing patience with its tolerance of favored jihadi groups.

At last month’s BRICS summit among five of the world’s most rapidly developing nations, a statement was issued condemning — for the first time — Lashkar-e-Taiba and its affiliates by name as a threat to regional stability. Pakistan’s civilian government daringly echoed the criticism. It cannot lift a finger against Saeed, given the military’s stranglehold over counterterrorism and foreign policy. But the sum effect of such glancing blows, and the potential diplomatic isolation that would result from maintaining the status quo, may have convinced elements of the military to make a show of “politically deradicalizing” its historic playmates.

The transformation might, moreover, yield strategic fruit. The army is known to loathe the recently ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who favored peace with India.

And the reduced margin of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s victory in Lahore last week, compared to the general election in 2013, owed much to the rise of the MML and its fellow religious party, which split the right-wing vote. The new parties’ street power alone might sway the future course of the country’s politics.

At large MML rallies, supporters chanted “Long live the Pakistan Army!” and — by coincidence or not — the party’s main goal is said to be opposing repeal of the broad, Islam-based articles of the constitution that the Supreme Court used to justify Sharif’s removal. It would take a brave politician to speak out in favor of reform when Jamaat-ud-Dawa and the MML control huge and boisterous vote banks.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Interior has so far resisted granting the Milli Muslim League the status of a political party — hence the need for MML to support its nominally independent candidate at arm’s length. But it may not be able to hold out much longer. One challenge the civilian government faces in dealing with Saeed’s organizations is the smoothness with which they adapt to rules. Jamaat-ud-Dawa, his charity, works zealously across the country. Its members carry out disaster relief, run around 200 schools, and have deliberately offered support to minorities — such as Hindus and Shiites — to win more public sympathy. The country’s former military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, referred to Jamaat-ud-Dawa as a “very fine NGO” in an interviewearlier this year. Military officials point out that if the MML submits to the requirements of Pakistan’s Constitution, whether they “wear beards or not, they would not be stopped [from forming a party] anywhere in the world.”

That runs a little wide of the truth, and, of course, operating a political party with one hand doesn’t prevent fostering jihad, covertly, with the other. Consider Hezbollah, for example. To date, Saeed’s outfits have played a similar double game as the Lebanese organization, which grew its militant wing alongside a burgeoning political front.

Jamaat-ud-Dawa, funded by charitable donations, operates from a sprawling base outside Lahore. Yet it was on the large lake inside those headquarters that Lashkar-e-Taiba militants reportedly prepared for their amphibious assault on Mumbai. If Saeed slips into the political mainstream, such practices suggest he will merely funnel some of the financial rewards to terrorist activities, while instructing his henchmen to smile for election officials.

The Pakistan army may find that its strategy backfires in another way. The whole point of using militants against India is to maintain a facade of plausible deniability. But bringing Saeed into the system puts all that at risk. After Lashkar-e-Taiba militants shot up the Indian parliament in 2001, 800,000 troops massed the border as India and Pakistan — two nuclear-armed nations — nearly went to war. The Pakistani state denied it had anything to do with the attack. That excuse was thin at the time. Repeating it now would wear it to vanishing point.

No simple solution to the Rohingya crisis

Rohingya refugees look through a fence as they wait outside of aid distribution premises at a refugee camp in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, on Oct 8, 2017. Source: Reuters/Mohammad Ponir Hossain

By Emma Richards | 9th October 2017

THE crisis in Rakhine State in Burma (Myanmar) is reaching a fever pitch. As more Rohingya Muslims continue to flood over the border to Bangladesh and reports of “ethnic cleansing” continue to dominate the headlines, the plight of this vulnerable community seems almost hopeless.

It is reported that over 500,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled the military offensive that has raged since Aug 25 after Rohingya insurgents attacked police posts and an army camp, killing 12 people.

A campaign of violence and arson aimed at driving out the Muslim population followed the attack, with human rights groups and news organisations accusing the Burmese military of burning down Rohingya villages, murdering innocent people and falsely blaming the atrocities on the rebel group Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA).

SEE ALSO: Here’s why Suu Kyi’s speech has met with global criticism

The Burmese government continues to lay blame at the feet of the “terrorist” rebels, and religious and racial hatred towards the ostracised group is being stoked by the authorities. 

As the tension mounts at home, with many local Burmese in this Buddhist majority nation believing that the Rohingya are illegal settlers and responsible for the bloodshed, a pathway to resolving the crisis seems almost unfeasible.

So far, little action has been taken by the international community to stem the flow of people or curtail the Burmese military from the reported offences they are committing. 

Bodies of Rohingya refugee children, who were killed when their boat capsized on the way to Bangladesh, are carried by local residents in Shah Porir Dwip, in Teknaf, near Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, on Oct 9, 2017. Source: Reuters/Damir Sagolj

While a number of world leaders have condemned the treatment of the Rohingya and urged de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi to speak out in condemnation of the brutality, few have put forward workable and realistic solutions to this ever-worsening crisis.

In this seemingly hopeless stand-off, what are the potential actions are available to the international community, as well as Burma and her neighbours, to stop the bloodshed and mass migration?

Targeted sanctions

Human Rights Watch were some of the first to call for targeted sanctions and an arms embargo on the Burmese military. In a statement to the UN Security Council, the group called for an immediate “travel ban and asset freeze on those responsible for grave abuses and impose a comprehensive arms embargo against Burma.”

It seems people may have listened, as news emerged today that the European Union and the United States are considering targeted sanctions against Burma’s military leaders.

Interviews with more than a dozen diplomats and government officials based in Washington, Yangon and Europe revealed that punitive measures aimed specifically at top generals were among a range of options being discussed in response to the crisis.

Nothing has yet been decided and Washington and Brussels may decide to hold off for now, the sources said.

According to Reuters, the EU Foreign Ministers Council will discuss Burma on Oct 16, although officials do not expect any move on sanctions that soon.

SEE ALSO: Rohingya crisis: How social media adds fuel to the flame

Washington-based US officials with knowledge of the Trump administration’s Burma deliberations said targeted sanctions against commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing and several other generals, as well as leaders of ethnic Rakhine Buddhist militias accused of torching Rohingya villages, were under consideration.

Such sanctions would likely include US asset freezes, bans on travel to the United States, prohibitions against Americans doing business with them and other unspecified penalties.

“Burma’s senior military commanders are more likely to heed the calls of the international community if they are suffering real economic consequences,” said John Sifton, HRW Asia advocacy director. “It hits those responsible for ethnic cleansing where it hurts.”

Create safe zones

Myanmar's army destroyed another Rohingya Muslim village in Rakhine state on Saturday. pic.twitter.com/Ml9ni5gtI3

— CJ Werleman (@cjwerleman) 8 October 2017

CJ Werleman‏Verified account @cjwerleman

Myanmar's army destroyed another Rohingya Muslim village in Rakhine state on Saturday.

The idea of setting up “safe zones” run by aid groups for Rohingya Muslims in Burma’s Rakhine state was proposed by Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in a bid to stem the flow of refugees crossing the border into her country.

Dhaka sent the proposal to Burma’s government through the International Committee of the Red Cross to secure three areas in Rakhine, home to the Rohingya community, suggesting that people displaced by the violence be relocated there under the supervision of an international organization, such as the United Nations.

While the plan is the latest to come from Dhaka who is struggling under the pressure of accommodating the refugees, it is unlikely to be considered by the Burmese where the Rohingya population are considered illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, despite them living in Burma for generations.

Coordinated response from Asean

Asean, India and Bangladesh need to discuss the Rohingya crisis together to work for an optimum solution to the problem, said Dr Sampa Kundu, Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

According to Kundu, the first step would be to convince the present government in Burma about the benefits of well-coordinated cooperation between Asean members, India and Bangladesh to tackle the issue.

Rohingya refugees who arrived from Burma by boat walk on the road of Shah Porir Dwip as they move to a refugee camp, in Teknaf, Bangladesh, on Oct 7, 2017. Source: Reuters/Mohammad Ponir Hossain

The platforms of the regional and sub-regional institutions including the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral, Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) need to be more effectively used to convince the NLD to “discuss the issue openly and take advantages of the experience of countries like India and Thailand who have long experience in dealing with insurgency and terrorism,” Kundu writes.

“Asean needs to push aside the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a member country as the Rohingya crisis is not a one-country problem.”

UN human rights resolution

In another sign of pressure building on Burma, New York-based diplomats said the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in the UN General Assembly was pushing for a human rights resolution on the country.

Last year the EU announced that for the first time in 15 years it would not introduce a resolution at the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which focuses on human rights, condemning Burma’s record – rewarding it for progress.

The European bloc could revive the resolution in the current session, taking on board the OIC draft and broadening it out beyond the Rohingya crisis, one diplomat in New York said.

SEE ALSO: Divided Asean urged to act on Rohingya crisis

Diplomats said some members of the UN Security Council were exploring whether the 15-member body could agree on a formal statement, or even a resolution, calling for an end to the violence, full access for aid and the safe return of refugees.

However, Burma has said it was negotiating with China and Russia, which have veto powers in the Security Council, to protect it from any possible action. China and Russia have both expressed support for the Burma government.

Additional reporting by Reuters

Tunisia health minister Slim Chaker dies after charity run

Slim Chaker became health minister only last month

9 October 2017

Tunisia's health minister has died of a heart attack after taking part in a charity marathon to help fight cancer.

Slim Chaker, 56, fell ill after running some 500 metres, and died in a military hospital, the health ministry said.

Prime Minister Youssef Chahed said he had lost a "brother and colleague", who had died doing a noble humanitarian act.

The marathon was held in the coastal town of Nabeul on Sunday to raise funds to build a cancer clinic for children.

Mr Chaker was appointed health minister last month in a major cabinet reshuffle.

He was a former banker who had served in the ministries of finance, sports and youth after the overthrow of long-serving ruler Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in 2011.

---

Heart attack symptoms

• Chest pain - a sensation of pressure, tightness or squeezing in the centre of the chest
• Pain in other parts of the body - it can feel as if the pain is travelling from the chest to the arms (usually the left arm is affected, but it can affect both arms), jaw, neck, back and abdomen
• Feeling lightheaded or dizzy
• Sweating
• Shortness of breath
• Feeling sick (nausea) or being sick (vomiting)
• Overwhelming sense of anxiety (similar to having a panic attack)
• Coughing or wheezing

Although the chest pain is often severe, some people may only experience minor pain, similar to indigestion. In some cases, there may not be any chest pain at all, especially in women, elderly people and people with diabetes.

Democracy forever

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Foremost among the key objectives of the present Constitution making process is the abolition of the Executive Presidency, it was the demand of everybody. Many explained the corruption and fascistic terror as a result of Executive Presidency. Finding a durable political solution as an answer to the long-standing Tamil question was rejected by the Sinhala racists, but almost all agreed that Executive Presidency is very dangerous as it may result in a dictatorship.

While the resolution of other issues do not seem to pose a problem at this juncture, the serious issue namely a political settlement to the Tamil national problem, could prove to be a challenge coming outside of Yahapalanaya. However SLFP has created a fresh problem by demanding not to abolish Executive Presidency. Mahinda has not demanded that but obviously he must be satisfied that such problem has emerged. In fact there is a possibility that in a bid to achieve Yahapalana majority consensus the legitimate aspirations of Tamils could once again damaged in Constitution making.

Constitution making process

The initial draft of the resolution to set up a Constitutional Assembly was introduced by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in January this year. Subsequently the resolution draft underwent much change through amendments proposed by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), Joint Opposition consisting of United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).

Among the key objectives of the Constitution making process, the abolition of the Executive Presidency, bringing about electoral reforms and finding a durable political solution as an answer to the long-standing Tamil question stand out. Consequently the resolution was passed unanimously.

Constitutional Affairs expert and parliamentarian Dr. Jayampathy Wickramarathne supported by another Samsamajist Lal Wijenaike has told the media that such changes to the original draft would not affect the essence of the resolution.

The agreement signed by SWRD Bandaranaike and SJV Chelvanayakam in 1957 was a remarkable event in the political history of post-independent Lanka. The Prime Minister of the day and the leader of the biggest Tamil political party had come to an understanding which if implemented would have solved the nationality problem of the country. The agreement known generally as the “Banda-Chelva Pact” was never allowed to work because of political opposition in the South. The opposition came from hardliners among the Sinhala Buddhist clergy and laity as well as hawkish elements among both the Government and opposition.

The United National Party (UNP) was vehemently opposed to the B- C pact calling it a sell-out of the Sinhalese. It was Junius Richard Jayewardene who wanted to revive the UNP’s flagging fortunes by playing the communal card. Unfortunately the Left dominated by Samasamajist did not come out to defend the B-C pact.

According to Jayampathi, they too supported communalist politics to discredit the new regime. That was a remarkable mistake and happily one can say Samasamajist today have come out to play an historic role by defending, the liberal attempt to establish a substantial solution to the Tamil national problem and the struggle for democracy. Today Polpotian radicals claim that Samasamajist are errand boys of Ranil Wickremesinghe, the leader of liberal bourgeoisie!

If somebody wants to speak on the Left, it is not sufficient politically speaking, to go through merely Marxist philosophy, its ideology and its method of economy. It is an attitude and a belief in all that is best in humanity; as given in Russian literature it makes a women or man give best to the society but expect the minimum from the society. We are told, all that will enhance and ennoble the dignity and worth of each and every human being. We can go on; the Left always stands for the equality of all, justice for all and universal (sisterhood/brotherhood) fraternity.

Question of minority rights

For the true leftist ‘Common Good’ is the primary concern, always taking priority over his personal privileges, perks or profits. However in the recent past in Lanka leftists got divided on the question of minority rights. Many giants of the left could not stomach the right of self determination of Tamils and became slaves of fascistic rulers.

A true leftist is never satisfied with the ‘status quo’ as long as single poverty ridden, oppressed person is found in the society in his surroundings. Oppression could be social or national; leftist should be able to recognize national oppression before he is conscious of social repression.

A sincere leftist is a woman/man full of ‘Maithree’ and kindness, not only for her/his fellow human beings, but for all living beings, flora and fauna and even the inanimate planet earth, our common home.

Unfortunately anti SAITEM is full of leftist who cannot show any kindness to students struggling to study in private sector simply because they have no space in the state owned medical colleges. Rathana Sadu says a true and a sincere leftist, even though s/he may call herself/himself an atheist, is a hidden but an authentic Buddhist, a genuine Christian, a true Hindu or a true Muslim.

Father Peiris says a genuine leftist may not be perfect but s/he is a full human being. He is ready to sacrifice anything, even his life, for the good of the people, the common good. He is a humble man who is ready to set aside his personal views or ideas for the sake of serving the people better. He has no disgusting love for position, power or perks. All that may be true but many leftists failed to recognize the tragedy faced by Tamils when Sinhala Only started dominating the society. Father says “If you accept as true the description given above of a good and a committed leftist, I’m sure what follows logically from that also will be acceptable to those who are genuinely concerned about our country and its future. I am addressing all people of goodwill, but especially the members of political parties and organisations that call themselves leftists. I certainly do not include the SLFP among them, though they pretend to be leftist, as the present day party leadership and its members are mere crooks, who have no interest at all in the welfare of the people or the country, and are in cahoots with the UNPers and their robber barons.”

What’s wrong with the left movement?

The left movement of our country has, as a whole, lost more than 80% of its credibility just by the fact that it is divided into so many political parties and organisations. It is pathetic to consider how small, weak and ineffective these many leftist entities are.

These divisions and enmities send a message of their small mindedness, their unconcern for the welfare of the people and the country. Yes these great leftist today became small women and men because they joined with racists under the pretext of patriotism or anti-imperialism. Truth is they have become followers of Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists.

In the course of that campaign they have become selfish sectarians or extremists. Only those who accepted the rights of the Tamil speaking people are capable of making a positive contribution in the present situation. 

A bouquet of flowers for Malwatte Mahanayake Thera!

Oct 08, 2017

We should say that the statement by Malwatte Chapter’s Mahanayake Tibbatuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera that some have misinterpreted devolution of power as a division of the country that that the country needs a constitution that devolves powers and does not divide the country is the best remark by a Sri Lankan religious leader in recent times. The Thera said so at a meeting with members of the national movement for a new constitution on the 03rd. MP Dinesh Gunwardena, who had called on him to point out harms from the constitutional draft was told by the Thera that the government’s assurance that no harm could was acceptable, and asked him not to oppose amending the clause nine and to present any alternatives. Sumangala Thera reminded Gunawardena that he was a member of the committee that formulated the draft.

Is the Mahanayake too, against Buddhism?

 

The Mahanayake Thera’s answer is very important at a time when Gunawardena and the gang are pointing at non-existent evil and trying for their day-to-day political existence by saying that they will appear for the nation and religion by sacrificing their lives, after the people toppled the Rajapaksa regime. What Dinesh, Weerawansa and Gammanpila have been doing is to label as traitors, anti-Buddhists, LTTE loyalists and pro-imperialists all those who oppose their petty political objectives. Now, they have the chance to try to brand the Malwatte Mahanayake Thera similarly and face ruin.

 

International politics are experiencing a wave of secession across the world. Ninety two per cent voted for secession from Iraq as Kurdistan at a referendum on September 25. The referendum on October 02 said yes to secede from Spain as Catalonia. Before that East Timor, Southern Sudan and Kosovo seceded. In the face of all these, Sri Lanka remains an issue too, but for how long?

 

A community demands secession when another community represses it, especially a minority of a country by the majority. But, recent examples did not show that the secession failed to bring their hopes of a prosperous state. Secession mostly ends up with clashes and further clashes.

 

The developing society points to the globalization concept and stresses further unity among the countries. That is because the climate change, energy crisis and other problems cannot be solved by getting isolated.

 

Who are the real separatists?

 

One kind racism depends on the opposing racism. The gang that claims disloyalty and sows the seeds of Sinhala racism when the Tamils are given a right, itself serves the needs of Tamil separatism. They take Tamil racists to task in the platforms and provide slogans for them. They convince Tamil racists that they cannot win their rights from Sinhala society. Therefore, they are the real separatists, although they accuse the Tamils of being so. That is how Dinesh, Gammanpila and Weerawansa become separatists. Now, they are using the word ‘unitary’ to dance their separatist tune.

 

The 80 year old veteran politician, opposition leader R. Sampanthan recently said a Sri Lankan identity was needed to solve the national problem.  His remark that comes with more than 50 years of political experience should be made the axis for the entire political movement of the country.

 

Therefore, it is essential that opportunistic politicians like Dinesh should be answered. That is why the Malwatte Mahanayake Thera’s answer is an excellent one.

 

Leftist prelate in Bhikku politics

 

Lanka News Web strongly criticized the Mahanayake Thera over the issue of the closure of the road in front of Dalada Maligawa in Kandy. We are ready to admit that our remark made with regard to the national issue by quoting our journalistic ideal Ajith Samaranayake is wrong and he is correct once again, as demonstrated by the remark by the Mahanayake Thera.

TH E TAMIL DIASPORA MUST CONTRIBUTE TO THE REBUILDING AND ESPECIALLY THE MARGINALIZED WAR VICTIMS – FATHER S. J. EMMANUEL

by Easwaran Rutnam.-08/10/2017

The change in the political environment in Sri Lanka recently saw the head of a leading Tamil diaspora group visiting the country, his first visit since a ban on him was lifted.

The President of the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) Father S. J. Emmanuel told The Sunday Leader there are some ‘good changes’ to be seen in the country, yet a lot more needs to be done.

He also called on the Tamil diaspora to not just visit Sri Lanka for a holiday, but seriously contribute to the rebuilding of the country.

Q: How did you feel, returning to Sri Lanka after so many years?

A: My last visit was in Feb 2005 soon after the Tsunami to distribute help to all coastal areas from Point Pedro to Kalmunai. Since I scan all newspapers of Colombo daily, I was not surprised to see some good changes, such as freedom of movement and of views. After the long conflict and war, a lot needs to be done. I think the present government has a unique chance to build up all that was lost.

Q: Do you see and feel real change on the ground?

A: I have not visited the South, but the North devastated by war has some form of peace mixed with fears, frustrations and uncertainty. Fears, because of the large military still withholding people’s lands and limiting livelihoods of people; frustrations are seen through prolonged protests against promises unfulfilled with respect to missing persons and incarcerations of innocents without trial.

Q: What led you to visit Si Lanka when some others in the Tamil diaspora still feel it’s not safe?

A: My long self-exile was caused by the then-media misunderstanding my role as a Catholic priest giving voice on behalf of my victimized people. When churches and schools were bombed and innocent people were dying in large numbers, as a Christian priest and vicar general, I spoke out against the bombings. This was seen as supportive of the LTTE which was fighting a war against the state forces. But the South and all media saw it as supporting terrorism, and abused me with all lies.
Now there is a change of government for the better. The former government had even a web page in which I was falsely portrayed as a terrorist and an enemy of Sri Lanka. But the new government, supported to power by us too, invited me to come back and help Sri Lanka towards recovery and reconciliation. It has delisted some in the diaspora but not all. I wish soon others too be delisted to enable the diaspora in rebuilding Sri Lanka as an island of peaceful coexistence.

Q: Could you tell us who you met while in Sri Lanka and what key message you conveyed to them?

A: I met government leaders, some High Commissioners, Church leaders and some civil society leaders who I thought will help towards reconciliation and peace. In all meetings I asked their help not to lose this unique chance towards a solution of the national conflict and pave the way for a peaceful coexistence of all people.

Q: There is a concern among some groups in the North that the process to draft a new Constitution has ignored the aspirations of the Tamils. What is your understanding of the situation?

A: The drafting of a new Constitution undertaken by the present unity-government is not an easy one-party majority achievement, as happened earlier drafting of constitutions. Here the new government is trying to get the consensus of all the parties in parliament as well as all sections of the people.
The interim draft is the first step towards achieving the goals of a peaceful coexistence of all peoples reconciled with one another and progressing in all aspects of life. It has some good points and does not contain all aspirations of the Tamil people as well as of the Sinhala people. Hence open discussion to move forward towards a win-win solution must be aimed. Those who view it selfishly only on one side are disappointed, but we have to understand the difficulties on both sides, without losing hope make the best out of these proposals.

Q: Can this government be trusted to deliver justice for alleged war crimes?

A: Justice for alleged war crimes! Yes we too have worked hard to get the whole past examined on the basis of truth, justice, accountability, transitional justice towards reconciliation. Although the SLG has finally cosponsored and agreed to the UNHRC resolution, it is weak in explaining to the people and making it acceptable to them. Internationally the SLG is able to hold a good face, but on the ground progress is very slow and minimal. More has to be done to enlighten and win over the extremist forces in the south.

Q: This government is still protecting former military officers who were involved in the war and have been accused of committing war crimes. Should there be pressure to investigate those officers as well or should the past be in the past?

A: Although the President as head of the state forces promises protecting them as past heroes, but such blanket cover of impunity for all, including the alleged criminals, will not do good for the county. The new Army commander seems to have a different and better idea of justice for the alleged criminals

Q: Following your visit what role do you see for the Tamil diaspora in Sri Lanka?

A: The Tamil diaspora must not only visit Sri Lanka for a holiday, but seriously contribute to the rebuilding of the country, especially the marginalized victims of the North and East. Instead of building only their old schools or temples/churches, they should help the marginalized poor and invest in projects to offer jobs for our youth.

– -Colombogazette

Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and Constitutional Reform in Sri Lanka

2017-10-09

peaking at the United Nations General Assembly recently, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that sovereignty should be the guiding principle in affairs among nations. Such statements aside, the United Nations, the United States and the ‘international community’ continue to wield their policy of intervening in countries and dictating terms for their internal governance. The strategically placed Indian Ocean island Sri Lanka, is a case in point.  
Influenced by the wealthy LTTE-proxy Tamil Diaspora lobby, the United Nations adopted the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (sponsored by the U.S. and Sri Lankan governments) in Geneva on October 1, 2015. The Resolution calls for accountability and an international investigation of human rights violations in the final stage of the Sri Lankan armed conflict and international monitoring of transitional justice and reconciliation. Clause 16 calls on the Sri Lankan government to devolve power on the basis of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution and uphold its commitment to political settlement, reconciliation and human rights. High level US government officials have admitted a ‘direct link’ between the U.N. Council Resolution and a new Constitution for Sri Lanka. They have offered assistance to draft and monitor its adoption claiming “a shared responsibility to help this process through’.   
 On the other hand, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon admitted the ‘grave’ and ‘systematic failure’ of the UN to carry out its own duties and uphold humanitarian interests during the final phase of the Sri Lankan armed conflict. Despite the questionable legitimacy of the United Nations to intervene and monitor Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government is rushing ahead with proposals for comprehensive constitutional reform to meet its obligations to the Geneva Resolution and the tight timeline set by the United Nations Human Rights Council.   

Constitutional Reform   

In March 2016, the Sri Lankan Parliament adopted a resolution to establish a Constitutional Assembly (comprising all the Members of Parliament sitting as a separate body) to develop a new Constitution. The Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly released its Interim Report on September 21, 2017. The Report is based largely on the expansion of the 13th Amendment and the recommendations of the Constitutional Reform Sub-Committee on Centre-Periphery Relations.   
The 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution was passed on November 14, 1987 following Indian intervention and the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord. The Accord was intended to resolve ‘the ethnic problem of Sri Lanka’ while preserving its ‘unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity’. The 13th Amendment was introduced to create Provincial Councils for devolving political power. However, the Indian intervention, the Accord and the 13th Amendment turned out to be massive failures. What ensued in the remaining decades was not conflict resolution but conflict escalation, violence and the emergence of the terrorist LTTE as the ‘sole representative’ of the Tamils. Following the military defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, the LTTE-proxy lobby and the ‘international community’ have intensified the demand for a political settlement based on the 13th Amendment.   

"The Interim Report of the Steering Committee of the Constituent Assembly replaces the current Constitution and the clause which states that ‘The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State’ with “Sri Lanka (Ceylon) …is an aekiya rajyaya / orumiththa nadu, consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution"

The current Sri Lankan government came to power in January 2015 with a mandate to abolish the Executive Presidency and reform the electoral system. It did not have a mandate to introduce a new constitution or change the governance structure from a unitary to a federal state. In the eyes of most local people, action on the ethical crises facing the government, such as, the Central Bank bond scam, take precedence over constitutional change. Yet, reforms which extend devolution well beyond the 13th Amendment and impinge on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country have been put forward.   
There is a lack of transparency in the constitution-making process and a dearth of information among the Sri Lankan public about the new Constitution. The Interim Report is vague and elusive on many important subjects. It says that the National List (pertaining to the authority of the Centre) will include subjects necessary to ensure sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, it does not provide an itemized National List. As such, the public are in the dark as to whether defence and national security, finance and foreign trade, minerals and mines, immigration and citizenship, census and statistics, posts and telecommunications, ports and harbours, aviation and airports, etc. that are in the National List under the 13th Amendment are still retained by the Centre or devolved to the Provinces in the new Constitution. The Interim Report introduces a Constitutional Court, a body which does not exist under the 13th Amendment for arbitrating disputes between the Centre and the Provinces but does not give details on its composition and functioning. The lack of information on these and other vital issues, makes it even more important to try and understand the constitutional reforms now being rushed through and their implications for the future of our country.   

‘Maximum Devolution’  

The Interim Report of the Steering Committee of the Constituent Assembly replaces the current Constitution and the clause which states that ‘The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State’ with “Sri Lanka (Ceylon) …is an aekiya rajyaya / orumiththa nadu, consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Provinces which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution”.  
This initial clause alone carries serious ambiguities. It resuscitates the use of the colonial English name for the island, Ceylon, the official use of which was abandoned in 1972. The clause circumvents the controversial English terms, unitary and federal by duplicitous use of Sinhala and Tamil terms even in the English text. The Sinhala and Tamil terms used carry different meanings: the Sinhala aekiya rajyaya can be translated as unitary state while the Tamil orumiththa nadu can be translated as united country or a country formed by amalgamation. By giving divergent interpretations of the identity of the state to the two linguistic communities, the clause lays the ground for new ethnolinguistic conflicts instead of truth and reconciliation that the new Constitution purports to deliver.   
The objective of the proposed new Constitution is to grant ‘maximum devolution’ by dismantling the powers of the central government. The reforms invoke the ‘principle of subsidiarity’ defining it as ‘whatever could be handled by the lowest tier should be vested in it’. Three tiers of government - the Central Government, Province and Local Authorities are identified. The Province is promoted ‘as the primary unit of devolution’ and the functioning of Local Authorities is brought almost entirely under the Provincial Councils. The Central Government is called to adopt a ‘participatory process with the Provincial Council’. The Report further states that ‘National Policy shall not override statutes enacted by a Provincial Council in respect of matters in the Provincial List’. In other words, the Central government becomes subservient to the Provincial Council at the regional level.   
The Interim Report upholds the possibility of two or more Provinces forming a single unit. It recognizes the Northern and Eastern Province as a single Province although the two Provinces were demerged after their temporary merger by India was ruled “unconstitutional, illegal and invalid” by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court in October 2006. The reintroduction of that controversial merger would appease Tamil separatists and their allies. However, it is bound to generate protests from Sinhala and Muslim communities in the Eastern Province who have always opposed a north-east merger which encompasses nearly one third of the island and has no historical or demographic basis. The proposal to establish exclusive ‘Community Councils’ to protect ‘minorities’ in different geographical areas is also likely to aggravate communalism and ethnic conflict rather than human rights, reconciliation and political settlement.  

"The 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution was passed on November 14, 1987 following Indian intervention and the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord. The Accord was intended to resolve ‘the ethnic problem of Sri Lanka’ while preserving its ‘unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity’. The 13th Amendment was introduced to create Provincial Councils for devolving political power"

Under the 13th Amendment, the Governor, as the representative of the Central Government in each Province retains extensive executive powers including the right to dissolve a Provincial Council. Under the new proposals, however, the Governor is reduced to a nominal status and the authority of the Centre is greatly reduced. The Concurrent List in the 13th Amendment pertains to subjects shared among the Centre and the Provinces, such as, protection of the environment and archaeological sites, prevention of the spread of contagious diseases and pilgrimages (across regions). However, the Concurrent List is abolished in the new Constitution to weaken the authority of the Centre.   
The constitutional reforms would require the Central government to request lands for national projects from the Provincial Administrations. When disputes arise between the Centre and the Provinces over land, they would be arbitrated by a tribunal made up of representatives from the Central Government and the Provinces. Any appeals to tribunal decisions would be made to the Constitutional Court. In further weakening the Centre, a National Land Commission with equal representation of the Central Government and the Provinces and representatives of all the major communities will be appointed to oversee land and water policies. When the Central Government or a Provincial Administration is found to be contravening the directions of the Commission, the matter would be referred to the new supreme arbiter, the Constitutional Court, not the judicial bodies of Sri Lanka including the Supreme Court.   
“The guidelines and declarations of the Commission shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any court or tribunal save and except the Constitutional Court. No other court or tribunal shall have jurisdiction to inquire into, or pronounce upon, or in any manner call in question, the validity of such guidelines or direction, on any ground whatsoever”.  
The Interim Report states that ‘powers devolved should not be taken back unilaterally from the Provinces’ by the Centre. In other words, Sri Lanka becomes a federal state where governance is constitutionally divided and the central authority cannot withdraw devolved powers at will.   

Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity?

The new Constitution provides the framework for each Province to become constitutionally independent and to have the freedom to secede from the federal union. Federalism leading to eventual statehood was the vision of S.J.V.Chelvanayagam, the founder of what was known as the Federal Party in English but, Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi or the Tamil State Party in Tamil. Although it is only Tamil politicians claiming to represent the Northern Province (while living in the south) that have been clamouring for separation, the proposed federal structure is likely to encourage other politicians to take up secession as well. It is likely to revive the call for a separate Muslim political entity in the Eastern Province which emerged during the failed 2002 Norwegian facilitated peace process. Constitutional guarantees against break-ups have not stopped secessionist efforts in numerous other regions in the world, such as Kosovo, Catalonia, Iraq and even Tamil Nadu. The political destabilization and fragmentation engendered by the new constitution could result in several warring mini-states on the island.   

Broadening Perspectives  

While conflict and violence have always existed, altruism and cooperation among ethnic and religious groups have been the dominant f   
It is time for Sri Lankan people from all ethnic, religious, social class and political backgrounds to understand the geopolitical threats facing the country and to stand up for its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ultimately, even more important is the need for the people to come together to protect the ecological integrity and sustainability of the island which is severely threatened by climate change, rising sea levels, frequent droughts, floods, landslides and so on.   
Dangerous constitutional reforms that benefit a handful of people with narrow, short-term internal and external interests need to be resisted. A strong central government with the ability to respond to common threats to the security and the island’s environment is needed. Not a mono-ethnic, corrupt Centre that is servile to external interests, but an ethical leadership drawn from all groups and committed to efforts to share power and resources. It is time to look ‘outside the box’ for genuine local and creative solutions. Unity amidst diversity requires the ethics of inter-dependence and partnership and a transformation of consciousness.