Sunday, March 3, 2019

Offering Socialism Without Socialism

On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol, and the list goes on.

by Slavoj Zizek

What a surprise! After Bernie Sanders announced his bid for the US presidency, attacks on him instantly arose from all sides.

They came not only from President Trump, who referred to him as a "wacko," nor the usual bunch of conservative commentators who proposed dozens of variations on the motif "You want Sanders as president? Look at Venezuela today!"

The smears also came from his more centrist Democratic Party opponents. And reading these barbs, one is immediately overwhelmed by a feeling of deja vu. Because we have lived through this situation before, in the time of the Democratic primaries contested between Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Arguably, the Clinton campaign against Sanders reached its lowest point when, campaigning for Hillary, Madeline Albright said: "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" (Meaning: females voting for Sanders instead of Clinton.)

Now maybe we should amend this statement: there is a special place in hell for women (and men) who think half a million dead children is an acceptable price for a military intervention that ruins a country (as Albright said in support of the massive bombing of Iraq back in 1996), while wholeheartedly supporting women's rights and gay rights at home.

Is Albright's worldview not infinitely more obscene and lewd than all Trump's sexist banalities? We are not yet there, but we are slowly approaching it.

Strong principles

Liberal attacks on Sanders for his alleged rejection of identity politics returned from the dead again, ignoring that Sanders is doing the exact opposite, insisting on a link between class, race and gender.

One has to support him unconditionally when he rejects identity in itself as a reason to vote for someone: "It is not good enough for somebody to say, I'm a woman, vote for me. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry."

As expected, for this very statement, Sanders was attacked as a white male chauvinist advocating "class reductionism." Indeed, don't be surprised if it will be soon denounced as an expression of toxic masculinity.

If we disregard straight lies (like the claim, proven false, that the young Sanders did not work with Martin Luther King in the civil rights struggle), the strategy of those who privilege Warren over Sanders is a rather simple one.

First, they claim that the difference between their respective economic programs is minimal and negligible. (One is tempted to add here: yes, minimal, like the fact that Sanders proclaims himself a democratic socialist, while Warren insists she is a capitalist to her bones... It is sad to hear Elisabeth Warren declaring herself a "capitalist to the bones" when even top corporate managers like Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Mark Zuckenberg talk about how capitalism, at least the way it functions now, cannot survive.)

Muddying waters

Then, critics claim that in contrast to Sanders' exclusive focus on economic injustice, Warren also brings in gender and race injustices, so her advantage over Sanders is clear: only Warren can unite a broad progressive front against Trump.

Ultimately, critics of Sanders end up with a kind of electoral affirmative action: Sanders is a man and Warren a woman. Thus, two key facts get obfuscated here: the democratic socialist of Sanders is much more radical than Warren, who remains firmly within the Democratic establishment.

Plus it is simply not true that Sanders ignores racial and gender struggles – he just brings out the link with economic struggle.

Warren is not, as her defenders claim, a third way between centrist Democrats and Democratic Socialists, the synthesis of what is best in race/gender identity politics and in the struggle for economic justice.

No, she is just Hillary Clinton with a slightly more human face. Even defenders of Warren admit that her claim to Native American roots was a mistake – but was it really just an innocent mistake?

The Cherokee Nation's secretary of state, Chuck Hoskin Jr, responded to the test showing Warren was between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American: "A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America."

Hoskin was right, and what one should add is that to prove that you have a little bit of exotic ancestry is to legitimize your popular roots – it has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual fight against racism.

However, the main point is that Warren applied for a "progressive" cause, using the same procedure that the Nazis applied to identify those with suspected Jewish blood.

On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol, and the list goes on.

What about virtual sex as sex without sex and what about the contemporary politics – the art of expert administration – as politics without politics? Do "Leftist" Democrats attacking Sanders not offer something similar – socialism without socialism, deprived of the features that make it a threat to the establishment?

Slavoj Zizek is a cultural philosopher. He’s a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and Global Distinguished Professor of German at New York University.

The truth about MPs’ pay

By Patrick Worrall-1 Mar 2019

MPs have been awarded another pay rise today, causing outrage among some commentators.

It’s been widely reported that the politicians will get an increase of 2.7 per cent from April, while the staff who work for them will get a rise of only 1.5 per cent.

This sounds unfair and ungenerous – but it’s not quite true.

How much do MPs get?

The independent body IPSA sets MPs’ pay.

IPSA controversially gave members of the House of Commons a big one-off pay rise in 2015, arguing that their pay had slipped behind other public sector professionals and parliamentarians in other countries.

MPs saw their basic annual salary rise from £67,000 to £74,000 that year, an increase of more than 10 per cent at a time when millions of public sector workers had their salaries frozen or were given rises capped at 1 per cent.

IPSA then originally planned to link future increases to average earnings growth in the whole economy.

But they changed their minds and decided to peg MPs’ salaries to changes in public sector pay instead – a slightly less generous settlement.

That’s why MPs are getting a raise of 2.7 per cent this year – that was the year-on-year pay increase for all public sector workers recorded by the ONS when the pay deal was decided. (here – tab 1)

For comparison, workers in the private sector are currently seeing year-on-year earnings growth of 3.5 per cent (that’s the latest three-month average). The figure for the whole economy – public and private sector workers combined – is 3.4 per cent.

Note that this is an average figure, so there will certainly be many public sector workers who are getting a less generous pay rise than the people they elect to represent them.

What about their staff?

There was some outrage expressed today at the apparent difference between the 2.7 per cent rise for MPs, and an apparent rise of just 1.5 per cent for their staff. But this is an unfair comparison.

Individual MPs will see their basic pay rise by 2.7 per cent from April, but the 1.5 per cent figure isn’t the same thing: it is an increase in the total budgets made available to MPs for staffing.

MPs have considerable flexibility about the seniority of the staff they hire and where they are based, as well as some wiggle-room over pay, within boundaries set by IPSA.

An intern based in a rural constituency office could be paid as little as £13,747.50 this year, and a senior parliamentary assistant working in Westminster could get as much as £49,793.

It’s possible that a politician who hires people at the top end of the pay scale and spends all his or her staff budget on existing salaries will not be able to give staff a rise of more than 1.5 per cent this year.

But IPSA data suggests most politicians don’t max out their staff budgets and could in fact increase pay by more than that if they wanted to.

The chair of IPSA, Ruth Evans, gave evidence in parliament last month and said: “There is headroom within MPs’ budgets currently to be able to increase their staff’s pay.

“I think around 60 per cent of MPs have that headroom, and the total headroom is around 8 to 9 per cent overall in the budgets.

“If MPs felt minded to increase their staff’s salaries, that is obviously something that the vast majority can do.”

The verdict

MPs got a big pay hike in 2015, at a time of widespread pay restraint.

Obviously, it’s very much a matter of opinion whether this was justified, whether the current basic salary (£79,468 from April) is fair, and whether the system for uprating their pay is a good one.

But there is a fair bit of loose talk flying around on this issue today that isn’t quite accurate.

It isn’t true that MPs are getting a bigger pay rise than the average public or private sector worker – although many people will see their earnings rise by less than average.

And it’s not right to say that MPs’ staff will inevitably get a real-terms pay cut: MPs get to decide exactly how much they pay their staff, and many will have the flexibility to hand out above-average raises.

Canada appeals court orders tobacco firms to pay billions in damages

Canadian cigarette packs must carry warnings

1 March 2019

A Canadian court has upheld the bulk of a decision that ordered three tobacco companies to pay billions in damages.

The judgment involves class action suits that were consolidated against Imperial Tobacco Canada, Rothmans Benson & Hedges and JTI-MacDonald.

The companies had appealed a 2015 ruling in favour that ordered them to pay over C$15bn (£8.5bn; $11bn).

The plaintiffs were Quebec smokers who said the firms failed to warn them of health risks associated with smoking.

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges said on Friday it will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

JTI-Macdonald Corp said it "fundamentally disagrees" with the decision and is considering all options, including an appeal.

Plaintiffs said the firms knew since the 1950s that their product was causing cancer and other illnesses and failed to warn consumers.

The companies had argued that Canadians have had a "high awareness" of smoking health risks for over half a century and say they have been strictly regulated.

The Quebec Court of Appeal sided on Friday with a lower court decision that concluded the companies had failed to provide adequate information about the "safety defect" in their tobacco products.

This is the largest award for damages in the country's history and will include interest on those damages.

The two class-action lawsuits were originally filed in 1998 before they were consolidated.

Smoking rates have reduced steadily in Canada over the years and in 2017 just under 17% of Canadians smoked at least occasionally.

In recent years, US courts have ordered tobacco companies to pay large awards.

But those payouts are often reduced upon appeal.

A $28 bn (£18.3 bn) ruling against Philip Morris was reduced to $28m on appeal in 2011.

American tobacco firms agreed in 1998 to pay US states over $200 bn (£131 bn) in fines in what is the largest civil litigation suit in US history. US states have been criticised for not spending enough of the compensation on anti-smoking programmes.

Police accused of destroying Thirukoneswaram Sivalingham

02 March 2019

190228 Thirukoneswaram Sivalingam EB.jpg

Residents in Thirukoneswaram accused Sri Lankan police officers of destroyed a granite Sivalingham statue on Thursday night, which was erected in the iconic Hindu temple just days before the celebration of Maha Sivarathiri.

According to residents officers accused the temple staff of erecting the statue without seeking permission from the Archaeological Department.

The statue had been erected in front of the food hall on the temple premises.

Thirukoneswaram temple in Trincomalee holds a special significance to Tamil Hindus being one of the Chola era built temples that was celebrated in ancient Tamil literature.

Saturday, March 2, 2019

Sri Lanka Navy: Karannagoda's Sin

On the 23rd of May, 2009, the petitioner (Karannagoda) informed the then secretary, ministry of defence, Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa of the allegations and recommended that the police investigate the matter

Former navy chief, Wasantha Karannagoda, who is wanted in connection with the abduction and killing of 11 young men has for the first time involved former defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in the case, court records showed.

Filing a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the prevention of his imminent arrest by the Criminal Investigations Department, Karannagoda has said that Rajapaksa was also aware of the case.

One of the key allegations against the war-time navy chief is that he did nothing to prevent the killing of the 11 men when the illegal incarcerations by the navy was brought to his attention in 2009.

The most chilling evidence against Karannagoda is that he knew about the abductions and the killings, but took no action to prevent them or secure justice for the victims. Involving Gotabhaya Rajapaksa adds a new dimension to the case.

Setting out the sequence of events according to him, Karannagoda for the first time brought Rajapaksa into the case in an apparent bid to shift responsibility to the then defence ministry chief who was also in charge of the police.

Karannagoda, in his 12-page petition said he had been informed of the allegations against his own security officer Sampath Munasinghe who was accused of abducting several men who were illegally held at a navy facility in Trincomalee in 2009.

“In those circumstances, on the 23rd of May, 2009, the petitioner (Karannagoda) informed the then secretary, ministry of defence, Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa of the allegations and recommended that the police investigate the matter,” according to the petition filed by Karannagoda’s lawyers.

However, Karannagoda’s then naval secretary Shamal Fernando had in his testimony to the police made it clear that Karannagoda took no action when the then minister Felix Perera brought the matter to his attention. Had Karannagoda taken action promptly, the lives of at least five of the victims could have been saved, Fernando had said.

Karannagoda’s fundamental rights application seeking an order preventing the CID arresting him -- after he was named the 14th in a list of 14 suspects accused of conspiracy to murder -- was put off for March 7 for support by his lawyers.

The state prosecutors refused to give an undertaking that he will not be arrested until the Supreme Court case was disposed of. This was despite Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, one of the judges from the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Nalin Perera, repeatedly asking Senior Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne for that assurance. Justice Jayawardena recused himself from the case.

Late last month, Colombo Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake impounded Karannagoda’s passport and informed immigration authorities to prevent him from leaving the island. He is now on the run and police have not been able to track him down.

The CID informed the magistrate that Karannagoda had aided and abetted the illegal confinement of the 11 young men by navy personnel directly under him. He was also accused of concealing information as well as trying to mislead investigators.

CID detectives have uncovered shocking details of how men directly linked to Karannagoda carried on a lucrative “white van operation” abducting children of wealthy business families and killing them after extorting money from them. Karannagoda’s security officer was known to be a lavish spender despite his modest income as a navy officer.

One of the naval officers implicated in murder had used a car from a victim and given it as a birthday gift to his wife. While investigating the abduction of the young men, the CID stumbled on another double murder of businessmen carried out by a naval unit which operated from the Welisara camp.

A van stolen from those two victims had been cannibalised, but police were able to trace some of the parts. There were reports of some navy personnel meeting with mothers of the victims and forcing them to part with their gold jewellery in exchange for the return of their children, a promise never kept.

An internal naval investigation had revealed sordid details of the organised criminal activities of navy officers and men under Karannagoda who had kept silent when he was told about the plight of five out of the 11 men.

The crimes of the navy men under Karannagoda were not made public till the change of government in 2015.

“Had Admiral Karannagoda taken steps at the time he was told about the five children (out of the 11 young men) who had been illegally incarcerated by the navy, they could have been saved,” an investigator told the Colombo Fort magistrate last month.

One of the victims, Rajiv Naaganathan, while in navy custody had been able to communicate with his parents using mobile phones of his captors till May 21, 2009. The CID found evidence that the young men had been detained in locations controlled by the then navy spokesman D. K. P. Dassanayake and Commander Sumith Ranasinghe.

Police have found evidence in respect of the abduction and murder of 11 children belonging to Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities, but the authorities believe many more would have been killed in similar fashion at a time when “white van” abductions were common.

Eight suspects – all navy personnel – are currently on bail and four are in remand custody. Karannagoda is most likely to join the four in remand custody, but police have failed to track him down. Although his lawyers filed a petition in the Supreme Court, he himself did not show up.

The 14 accused are;

1) Sampath Nilantha Munasinghe

2) Ranasinghe Pedige Sumith Ranasinghe

3) Thilakarathnage Lakshman Udayakumara

4) Nalin Prasanna Wickremasuriya

5) Thammita Ihalaghedara Dharmadasa

6) D. K. P. Dassanayake

7) Kithsiri

8) Muthuwa Hennadige Mendis

9) Kasthuriarachchige Gamini

10) Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi

11) Sanjeeva Prasad Dilanka Senaratne

12) Imbulana Liyanage Upul Chaminda

13) Anton Fernando

14) Wasantha Karannagoda

UNHRC 40: SRI LANKA’S EFFORTS TO REPEAL AND REPLACE PTA IS PRAISED; IMPROVEMENTS TO CTA PROPOSED.

Image: Special Rapporteur on countering terrorism Fionnuala Ní Aoláin.

02/03/2019

In the context of Sri Lanka, as mandate holder I have continued the engagement opened up by the visit of Mr. Emmerson July 2017. The report affirms the important opportunity available to the government to address long-standing and serious human rights concerns, in respect of fair trial, allegations of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, ensuring accountability for serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law, and redressing stigmatization and exclusion of minority communities.

Mr. Emmerson and I welcomed, in particular, the commitment of the government review and repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and to replace it with new legislation. As I have affirmed in communications with Sri Lanka the new legislation makes significant and commendable efforts to address procedural protections for rights, deepens access to judicial oversight, and provides for a range of important human rights protections, including a role for the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission. I encourage the government to continue its focus on legislatively enacting a tight and limited definition of terrorism, to ensure proscription is a limited and proportionate device, to ensure violations of human rights are speedily and effectively addressed and to enable full and unrestricted access to legal counsel and magistrate oversight.

I also bring attention to reform of the Security Sector including full civilian control and oversight, and proportionate representation of all groups including minorities, as well as a fair and through vetting process to ensure that persons who have committed serious human rights violations are held accountability for their actions. The mandate looks forward to its ongoing work with the government, and continues to offer my technical assistance to your endeavors.
—–
In terms of State practice in this area I make the following recommendations:

(2) States must ensure that their measures to address the threats of terrorism and violent extremism and to protect national security do not negatively impact on civil society. In particular:

a. States are encouraged to establish independent mechanisms to review and oversee the exercise of emergency powers, terrorism legislation, administrative measures related to terrorism, and legislation addressing violent extremism. The mandates of such independent mechanisms should specifically include the effects of such legal measures on the functioning and capacity of civil society.

b. Definitions of terrorism and of violent extremism in national laws must not be overly-broad and vague. They must be precise and sufficiently clear to avoid including members of civil society, or non-violent acts carried out in the exercise of fundamental freedoms. The protection of national security must be narrowly construed. Emergency measures must be strictly limited, and not be used to crackdown on civil society actors and stifle freedom of expression

c. Legitimate expression of opinions or thought must never be criminalised. Non-violent forms of dissent, criticism of the State and of government action, are at the core of freedom of expression. Reporting on, documenting or publishing information about terrorist acts or counter-terrorism measures, are an essential aspect of transparency and accountability.

d. Measures that aim to regulate the existence and control and limit the funding of civil society must comply with the requirements of proportionality, necessity and non-discrimination. The failure to comply with administrative requirements must never be criminalised.

e. Humanitarian actors should be protected from any forms of harassment, sanctions or punishment resulting from measures to counter terrorism or violent extremism. Humanitarian action must be clearly exempt from measures that criminalise various forms of support to terrorism.

f. Judicial access and remedies must be available to all civil society actors impacted by terrorism sanctions regimes.

(3) All national and institutional actors involved in countering terrorism and PCVE:

a. Must be conscious of the serious indirect impact that overlapping, sustained and cumulative measures have on civil society, notably in creating a chilling effect that will affect all actors even without direct targeting. Particular care must also be had to avoid the stigmatisation, marginalisation, co-optation, and exclusion of civil society, as well as securitisation of its work.

b. Are encouraged to pay greater attention to the impact of the increased regulation of the ‘pre-‘ and ‘post-’ criminal space and its effects on civil society actors, notably through the development and use of various lists of broad categories of vaguely-defined individuals such as “terrorists” and “foreign terrorist fighters” that are shared between jurisdictions.

(From the Statement by Ms. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM at Human Rights Council – 40th Session on 1 March 2018)

Ten Years After A War Without Witnesses: Global Tamil Forum Calls To Ensure Sri Lanka Firmly Remains On The UNHRC Agenda

MARCH 1, 2019

“The time is right to consider consequences – both bi-lateral and multi-lateral – if Sri Lanka continues to repudiate its commitments,” says the Global Tamil Forum.

Issuing a statement today the GTF said: “Ten years after the end of one of the most brutal wars of recent times, all victims and their families, irrespective of their background, need justice and closure. Any further delay and diversions will only perpetuate the injustice and long suffering.”

We publish below the statement in full:

It is almost ten years since the war ended in Sri Lanka. The Tamil community suffered the most devastating impact of the war. Death, enforced disappearances and displacement was the norm, literally not a single family was left unaffected. The misery reached a crescendo during the final stages of the war. Despite Sri Lanka’s attempt to conduct the war without witnesses, evidence of brutality came to light in the form of videos, photographs and victim statements after the conclusion of the war. The systematic violence – sexual abuse and cold-blooded execution of war surrenderers, indiscriminate shelling of hospitals and safe zones, and denial of desperately needed humanitarian assistance – led to the deaths of tens of thousands during the final stages of the war, mostly Tamil civilians in the hands of the country’s security forces.

Though the UN system failed miserably in 2009 to protect civilians, subsequent initiatives taken by the leading UN officials to address this failure were notable and praiseworthy. The leadership shown by these UN officials with the support of a core group of countries led to the adoption of five UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka itself co-sponsored the last two, 30/1 (2015) and 34/1 (2017), committing to implement transitional justice measures, including those related to truth, justice, and reparations.

Despite Sri Lanka’s public pledge, its commitment and conviction to faithfully implement the resolutions have been lacking from the word go. Merits of the accountability process and the need to end impunity for the future wellbeing of all its communities hardly entered a national dialogue. A comprehensive plan to implement all aspects of the resolutions was never developed. Instead, it was always an ad hoc, politicized process with twin objectives – a façade of actions to keep the international community at bay, while no judicial enquiries that would indict military personnel or bound to result in political fallout. Justice for the victims and their families was never a serious concern.

It is in this context that all of Sri Lanka’s diversionary tactics and half-measures should be understood – a Consultation Task Force (CTF) whose well-considered recommendations were dismissed out of hand; operationalising Office of the Missing Persons (OMP) after years of delay but with a restricted mandate to be effective; the undue delay in repealing the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and replacing it with an Act that meets international standards; and now the plan to set up Office of Reparation, without synchronising it with the judicial process. Regarding the crucial aspect of criminal accountability, Sri Lankan leaders have been consistently stating that no international judges will be incorporated into the legal process – a key requirement of the resolution, and a core demand of the Tamil victims. Sri Lanka has made zero progress on this matter.

The recent call by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe for a process of truth telling, regret and forgiveness – without the key promises of justice and accountability, and the statement by President Sirisena that discussions were going on regarding Sri Lanka withdrawing from UNHRC commitments, therefore, are astounding, sinister and dangerous. Whether these are tactics to avert judicial accountability or bargain positions to weaken international will, or truly ill-considered steps to seclude Sri Lanka from the international processes – only time will tell.

Letting Sri Lanka off the hook at this critical juncture without formal UN scrutiny will invariably result in the abandonment of its accountability commitments. No doubt it will alienate the Tamil community by failing to address longstanding grievances related to impunity, thus effectively extinguishing the prospect of reconciliation. It will also abruptly end the processes designed to mitigate the past UN failures and convey a dangerous message that accountability commitments for international crimes are expendable.

As Sri Lanka continues to squander a unique opportunity to address its tragic past, the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) calls on the international community and the members of the UNHRC, to ensure that Sri Lanka firmly remains on the UNHRC agenda until all aspects of resolutions 30/1 and 34/1, are fully implemented without exceptions. The new resolution contemplated must be strengthened by time-bound action plan and be subject to more rigorous monitoring by a special country rapporteur and/or by OHCHR presence in the country or by any other suitable mechanism.

The topsy-turvy world of today

Trump in Hanoi, Samantha Power in Colombo, and Indo-Pakistan farce:

Rajan Philips-March 2, 2019, 8:24 pm

To pick up where I left last week – on the rise millennial socialism in America, there are quite a few historical and contemporary quirks that might be of interest to the curious. ‘When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold’ was the stock phrase in the second half of the twentieth century when America was the dominant super power. The statement was a direct adaptation of what Prince Metternich had said of revolutionary France during the ‘age of revolution in Europe’, in the 19th century: "when France sneezes, Europe catches cold." In the 21st century, there is no chance whatever of the world catching anything from the millennial socialist sneeze in America even if it turns out to be a strong one. It is also a sign of the waning US power and influence in today’s world that America finds its President travelling to Hanoi to stage a performance of diplomacy with his counterpart from North Korea that began as farce and ended as failure.

In a somewhat different sign of soft power and influence, Samantha Power, the US representative to the UN under President Obama, visited Colombo last week to felicitate Mangala Samaraweera for completing 30 years in politics. More than American influence, this was an instance of Sri Lankan politics seeking external validation, a yearning, if it could be so called, that did not pre-occupy Sri Lankan politicians who completed 30 years and more in politics in years past. One might blame, or praise, globalization for this. Globalization has given the political class everywhere the means for striking solidarity and validation across state boundaries even while losing political support in their own national societies. To paraphrase the old, or the New Testament call to redemption: what profits a politician if he gains support in the whole world but his party loses the election at home?

On a different matter, globalization has not been able to make any dent in the hostile relationship between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Last week, they exchanged air strikes for the first time in history, even though the two countries have fought three wars over Kashmir since 1947. The belligerent situation was triggered by the killing of 40 Indian paramilitary police personnel in Kashmir by suicide car bombing carried out by Pakistani militants. The escalation to air strikes could have been avoided but the Modi government was not about to give up the chance to whip up patriotism just over a month before the national elections in India. Fortunately, there is strong public and stakeholder opinion in both countries against any further escalation and the Modi government seems to have realized that there is no path to winning the April-May elections in India by going to war with Pakistan now.

Nothing is the same

The point of my discussion is how circumstances have changed since the time India and Pakistan fought their three wars over Kashmir (the fourth one was over Bangladesh) and the time now when even an actual war between them would seem not only farcical but also fake. Cross-border, non-state terrorism is a new phenomenon, while the old Cold War alliances have all been turned upside down. Pakistan then was the US outpost in what was then the SEATO alliance that included, besides the US and Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, France, UK, the Philippines and Thailand. India was the leader of the ‘non-aligned’ world but leaning heavily on the Soviet Union. No one messed with Afghanistan, perhaps heeding Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s condescending advice to his successor Alec Douglas Home, "My dear boy, as long as you do not invade Afghanistan you will be absolutely fine." Home did not last a single election in the UK, and Brezhnev sleep-marched the Soviet army into Afghanistan. Nothing has been the same since, across the Khyber Pass.

Now America has inherited the Afghan curse from the long defunct Soviet Union. America is also closer to India than Pakistan and Israel is reportedly one of the sources of inspiration to the Indian government in the current sabre rattling. On a side note, the Attorney General in Israel is bringing charges of corruption against his own Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the AG’s action seems to be undermining Netanyahu’s chances of holding on to power in the April 9 election. He is quite capable of pulling off electoral victories from the jaws of defeat, as he has done so many times, by playing Israel’s eternal existential card. No one will be accused of triggering a regime change in Israel from the outside, as Mr. Netanyahu has its strongest ally in the current US President.

President Trump has his own troubles and travelled to Hanoi to divert attention from the mounting allegations in his own country, not so much against his politics as President as against his businesses before he became President. Trump is perhaps the only person in the world to actively solicit the Nobel Peace Prize, and the main reason for this craving is that Obama was given the Nobel peace prize soon after he became President in 2009. Trump’s grouse is that Obama was given the prize "for doing nothing", and got the Prime Minister of Japan to send a petition to the Nobel Prize Committee on his behalf, and has been hoping to boost his claim by achieving denuclearisation of North Korea and peace in the Korean peninsula. Neither prospect was within his grasp in Hanoi to start with, so he made the best of a bad situation by staging a friendly walkout from the summit, and hoping that the walkout will grab favourable headlines back home in America. Back home, more than two-thirds of Americans are mocking Trump, but the near 30% support that Trump has been consistently having is a disturbing symptom for any society that wants to become more civil, more generous and a more equal society.

Trump is not going to be aware of this but his meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in Hanoi, of all places, is another historical oddity. In 1975, when Saigon was recaptured by the Vietnamese during America’s war in Vietnam, and young Kim was not even born, Kim’s grandfather, Kim Il-Sung travelled to China to solicit the Red Army’s support to run over South Korea concurrent with the fall of South Vietnam. China declined. Some might say a great opportunity for communism in Asia was lost, but many in China and Vietnam today would see it differently. Both China and Vietnam are market economies run by Communist Party governments – "ardently capitalist communists", as The Economist gloated a while ago. Now it is the turn of America to project the new millennial socialism, but no one is catching cold. In the Marxist schema – the socialist revolution was supposed to first breakout in advanced capitalist societies. For strong historical and material reasons, revolutions broke out in less but unevenly developed societies. As Engels saw it, history was beginning to turn its skein from the wrong end. Without their knowing it, the American millennials might be at the right end of history.

Political Anniversaries

As anniversaries go, it was not only Mangala Samarweera who celebrated his 30 years in politics but also John Amaratunga who celebrated his forty years, and perhaps further reminding Mangala that he is still "Khema’s boy." While Samantha Power came from America to felicitate Mangala, no one came from the Vatican to felicitate John Amaratunga. Thank God for that. But the political troika of Rajapaksa, Sirisena and Wickremesinghe was in full attendance for John Amaratunga. I am not sure if Mahinda Rajapaksa was present in Mangala’s celebrations, but he was given special mention by Samantha Power in her speech – recalling where it all began for Rajapaksa and Samaraweera – when they founded the "Mothers’ Front" in the 1990s to fight for justice and for compensation for those who were deemed ‘disappeared’ owing to the actions of state and non-state actors.

Then the two men were opposing the juggernaut of a UNP government. Mangala Samaraweera in his speech recalled the inspirational leadership of Chandrika Kumaratunga in ending the UNP rule after 17 long years. President Sirisena remarked that Mangala Samaraweera’s political beginnings in the opposition have prepared him well for politics in government. Mr. Samaraweera has also made a name for himself for bringing about ‘regime change’ by political realignments and electoral success. In 2005, he shifted loyalties from Chandrika Kumaratunga to Mahinda Rajapaksa. Then he fell apart with the Rajapaksas and has since been fighting the Rajapaksa juggernaut that had come to replace the earlier UNP juggernaut. He was one of the masterminds behind the defection of Sirisena in 2014 and the defeat of the Rajapaksas in 2015.

It is one thing to mastermind regime change, but quite another to deliver as a government. By that metric or yardstick, it can only be said that the present government in which Mangala Samaraweera has played so big a role has grossly over-promised and grossly under-delivered. Worse, the present government stands accused of the same corruption in government that it has failed to prosecute its predecessor for. This is not to take way from the encomiums that Samantha Power showered on him at the BMICH, but only to lament that things could have been and should have been done differently.

As Samantha Power said towards the end of her speech, "My country and your country are facing turbulent times … But critically, while our respective institutions have bent, they are not breaking in the US, and they are not breaking in Sri Lanka." The only difference is that in the US, the ‘turbulence’ started after the 2016 presidential election, while in Sri Lanka a new government was elected in 2015 to put an end to the Rajapaksa turbulence that was beginning to churn and destroy Sri Lankan democracy. The felicitation of Mangala Samaraweera would have been a great deal more fulsome and authentic if he and Ranil Wickremesinghe had delivered even a quarter of what they handsomely promised in 2015. Were that the case, Samantha Power could have been spared the discomfort of travelling 8,000 miles to felicitate Khema’s kolla..

Lanka to co-sponsor fresh resolution at UNHRC

By Namini Wijedasa-Sunday, March 03, 2019

Britain-led core group replaces US as a co-sponsor

Sri Lanka, along with the Britain-led ‘core group’, will co-sponsor a fresh resolution at the UN Human Rights Council on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in the country, authoritative sources said.

The ‘Zero Draft Resolution on Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka’ is already in circulation. Among other things, it envisages continued involvement of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and special procedure mandate holders in advising and providing technical assistance “on the promotion and protection of human rights and truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka”.

Only last week, President Maithripala Sirisena told the Sunday Times Political Editor that Sri Lanka was considering withdrawing co-sponsorship of the resolution. He maintained that Sri Lanka’s armed forces have not committed ‘war crimes’ and that the worst crimes were carried out by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The resolution also requests the OHCHR to continue to assess progress on the implementation of its recommendations and “other relevant processes related to reconciliation, accountability and human rights”. It bears upon the OHCHR to present a further written update on Sri Lanka’s progress to the HRC at its 43rd session and a comprehensive report at its 46th session.

The first open informal consultation on the zero draft resolution is scheduled to take place on Tuesday at the Palais de Nations in Geneva. At the UNHRC, informal consultations on proposals convened by main sponsors are the primary means for the negotiation of draft resolutions and decisions. They are convened by the sponsors and at least one should be held on each draft resolution before it is considered for action by the Council.

The core group on Sri Lanka also comprises Canada, Germany, Macedonia and Montenegro. Britain has taken a lead role after the United States left the HRC last year. Till then, the US was the main force behind resolutions on Sri Lanka.

Earlier, Britain announced that it will work in partnership with Sri Lanka and look to continue the cooperation which began in 2015 to implement the commitments in HRC Resolution 30/1.

The five-page HRC/RES/30/1, adopted on October 1, 2015, ties Sri Lanka to a set of commitments including the establishment of “a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence, an office of missing persons and an office for reparations”.

The Government also undertook to set up “a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable” and affirmed that the process “should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality”.

This year’s zero draft resolution recognises “the strong role played by Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions in the peaceful resolution of the political situation” that arose from October to December 2018. It welcomes the establishment of the Office on Missing Persons and appointment of Commissioners.

The draft also welcomes the visits to the country of various special procedure mandate holders (special rapporteurs, working groups and independent experts). It notes with appreciation the return of “some private land” previously held by the military to civilians but recalls the Government’s “repeated public commitments” to release all such lands.

The others steps taken note of by the resolution include “progress towards establishing an Office on Reparations and the submission to Cabinet of a concept paper on a Bill to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the proposed repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1978 and the preparation of a draft Counter Terrorism Act”. It underscores the need for “further significant progress” and encourages the adoption of a time-bound implementation strategy.

Meanwhile, the latest OHCHR report on Sri Lanka is also expected to be released soon.