Sunday, March 24, 2019

Detailed images of baby heart inside the womb

Watch how the foetus jumps around the inside the womb in MRI scan footage

By James Gallagher-23 March 2019

Researchers have produced unprecedented images of a baby's heart while it is still inside the womb.

Pregnant women were scanned in an MRI machine and powerful computers built 3D models of the tiny beating hearts inside their unborn children.

The team at King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas's says it will improve the care of babies with congenital heart disease.

The researchers say their approach could easily be adopted by hospitals.

Violet-Vienna's heart

Image captionKirbi-Lea and Violet-Vienna Pettitt, now 11 months old

Violet-Vienna developed life-threatening abnormalities in the blood vessels around her heart while she was still inside her mother.

Problems were first detected when Kirbi-Lea Pettitt went for a routine ultrasound scan 20 weeks into her pregnancy.

She then took part in the study to look at her baby's heart in vivid detail.

It showed a narrowing of the main artery coming from the heart - the aorta - which would block the blood vessel after birth. Her daughter also had two holes in her heart.

"It was very scary, I was just shell-shocked really," Kirbi-Lea told the BBC.

But it allowed doctors to plan how to save Violet-Vienna's life after she arrived in the world.

"I wasn't allowed to hold her, they had to take her straight away to put her on medication to keep her aorta open," said Kirbi-Lea.

Her baby had heart surgery a week later, but after a tricky start is now a healthy 11-month-old.

Kirbi-Lea said: "She's doted on by everyone and she's just thriving - and it's all down to these specialists and this technology.

"It's amazing what they do, it's lifesaving."

How the technology works

A tiny baby's heart — Image captionBBC correspondent James Gallagher holds a 3D printed model of a baby's heart in the palm of his hand

A series of 2D pictures of the heart are taken from different angles using an MRI machine.

But the foetal heart is tiny, beats incredibly quickly, and the baby moves around inside the womb so the images of the heart look like a fuzzy blur.

But then comes the really clever bit.

Sophisticated computer software pieces the images together, adjusts for the beating of the heart and then builds an unprecedented 3D image of the heart.

It gives doctors a clear view of the abnormality.

Media captionSee the 3D image of a foetal heart

Better for babies

Congenital heart diseases affect up to eight in every 1,000 babies born in the UK.

They can be caused by infections and some medicines, and can run in families.

NHS: Congenital heart diseases

Prof Reza Razavi, consultant paediatric cardiologist, wanted to improve the diagnosis of the birth defects after his daughter was born with one.

"We thought we were going to lose her, that was a strong motivator... we should be able to pick up the problem in the womb."

He describes the 3D images as "beautiful" and says they let doctors clearly see the problem and improve care.

He told the BBC: "We can have complete certainty and plan ahead what treatment is needed, what's the operation we need to do.

"It really helps the parents to have the right support to know what's going to happen.

"But it also really helps the babies because they get the right operation at the right time and have the best outcomes."

Will it be used?

The study, published in the Lancet, shows the 3D imaging worked in 85 pregnant women, but has now been tested on more than 200 patients.

Dr David Lloyd, a clinical research fellow at King's College London, said: "Our hope is this approach will now become standard practice for the Evelina foetal cardiology team, who make a prenatal diagnosis in 400 babies each year.

"This will also improve the care of over 150 babies each year who deliver at St Thomas's Hospital with known congenital heart disease."

He says the technology would be easy to adopt if a hospital already has an MRI machine, because the only new equipment needed would be a computer with a decent graphics card.

The future of baby scans?

Ultrasound pregnancy scan — Image captionPregnant woman having a routine ultrasound scan

The research is part of the iFind project to increase the number of health problems picked up during standard pregnancy scans.

If they are diagnosed only after birth then vital time can be lost in trying to make a diagnosis.

Another approach is to use four ultrasound probes at the same time - current scans use one - to get a more detailed picture.

Follow James on Twitter.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Jaffna uni students demand Sri Lanka be referred to ICC for genocide

190316 Jaffna protest NC 1.jpg

Students at the University of Jaffna joined families of the disappeared last Saturday to demand Sri Lanka be referred to the International Criminal Court for committing a genocide against the Tamil people.

22 March 2019

Students condemned the UN Human Rights Council's decision to grant an extension to the government to implement the co-sponsored resolution.

The protest began in front of the university and ended at the municipality council sports grounds.

Sumanthiran tells Govt: Adhere to UNHRC resolution implementation

Disna Mudalige and Camelia Nathaniel-Saturday, March 23, 2019

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M.A. Sumanthiran made a stern appeal to the government to adhere to the time bound implementation of the UNHRC resolution which the country co-sponsored for the third time last Thursday.

Joining the Committee Stage debate in Parliament yesterday, Sumanthiran warned, “I want to make one thing very clear. The government of Sri Lanka has made these commitments thrice in writing. But if they do not adhere to this commitment of including independent foreign judges in the judicial mechanism, then we, the Tamil people will be left with no alternative but to move towards an entirely international judicial mechanism. That is possible and our people have been asking for this, asking that Sri Lanka be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC)”.

“We prefer a hybrid judicial mechanism, but if the government, despite all of these written commitments, and the fact that it is possible under the Constitution to do so, doesn’t do it, then I think it is important that I today announce to the government and to the country, that we will take steps to move Sri Lanka to the ICC or some other entirely international judicial mechanism. So if the words of the Foreign Minister in Geneva are to be realised, that we must find mechanisms for reconciliation within the country, then you must adhere to these commitments. It is only through the participation of foreign judges can independence be assured. In a matter where the contesting parties or the warring parties include on one side the state of Sri Lanka and on the other side a militant group that had the objective of dividing the country, the state of Sri Lanka cannot be an independent arbiter and it is because of an independent judicial mechanism that nobody can complain about, that we have asked for participation of foreign judges. If that is not adhered to, and the commitments given to the International community is breached, then the country will have to face a tribunal that is entirely international.”

“Sri Lanka has yet again co-sponsored a resolution which was adopted at the UNHRC on March 21 unanimously by all member countries. Sumanthiran noted that the resolution underscores Sri Lanka’s commitment to adhere to the promises made in resolution 30/1 that was adopted on Oct 01, 2015 with the co-sponsorship of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has co-sponsored the resolution three time, Resolution 30/1 on October 01, 2015, March 23, 2017 when resolution 34/1 was adopted and March 21, 2019 when resolution 40/1 was adopted unanimously”.

It is important to know what Sri Lanka has agreed to do under these three different resolutions, all of which are identical in content. Yesterday’s resolutions refers to resolution 30/1 and reiterates, for the third time Sri Lanka’s commitment to adhere to it, he noted.

Quoting operational Paragraph 6 of Resolution 30/1 he said it, “Welcomes the recognition by the Government of Sri Lanka that accountability is essential to uphold the rule of law and to build confidence in the people of all communities of Sri Lanka in the justice system. It notes with appreciation the proposal of the government of Sri Lanka to establish 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, affirms that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality and also affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism including the special counsel’s office of commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators.”

Four types of persons are referred to in this resolution to function in the Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, but in their capacity as foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators.

“This is the commitment that even yesterday, Sri Lanka has signed and co-sponsored and enabled the passage of a resolution. It is false to say that we have not agreed to the participation of foreign judges. There is authoritative text to which Sri Lanka has signed to three times over. In that text Sri Lanka has very specifically agreed and to anybody who understands English can understand that there can be no other interpretation referred to the categories by their office, judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators. But despite this, I am sad that the Foreign Minister who led the delegation on March 20 at the UNHRC has stated what the President of Sri Lanka and the Prime Minister and various others have been saying for some time, that there is no space for foreign judges to participate in the Sri Lankan judicial process. That is false. If that was so, this could not have been signed by Sri Lanka. At the time it was signed, in October 2015, I was in Geneva and so was Minister Wijayadasa Rajapakshe, on behalf of the government of Sri Lanka. As the Minister of Justice, he raised this issue and then he agreed that it is possible under the Sri Lankan Constitution to have foreign judges,” said Sumanthiran.

He added that it is upon Rajapaksha’s agreement that 30/1 was signed. “In fact, it is Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe who in 2013 presented to this house a Private Members Bill, as an opposition member, for the investigation and inquiry into judges of the Supreme Court during Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake impeachment saga, he presented a Private Members Bill which provided for foreign judges. If Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe thought that it was unconstitutional, he could not have done that. In fact, Article 105 of our Constitution lays no restriction and Article 111 with regard to the High Court lays no restriction with regard to the nationality of judges. It is false to say that the Constitution prohibits the participation of foreign judges.

It does not prohibit. There are judicial decisions in this regard,” he said, adding that unlike in the case of the Indian and Pakistani constitutions, our Constitution does not contain any guidelines qualifying or restricting or circumscribing the acts of appointment of judges. Therefore, he said there is no legal or Constitutional bar for foreign judges to participate in the judicial mechanism and in fact, the government of Sri Lanka has accepted that and acceded to that position. “It is also important to note that whatever be the rhetoric of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Geneva, the government has now agreed to this. And also agreed for the first time in 40/1 that was adopted on Thursday, a time bound implementation which has been brought in for the first time in this resolution because the Sri Lankan government has been extending and delaying the implementation of all of these promises made in the UNHRC,” he noted, pointing out that it is because of this that these other resolutions 34/1 and 40/1 are being categorised as time extensions.

UNHRC RESOLUTION ON SRI LANKA, MARCH 2019: PROMOTING RECONCILIATION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN SRI LANKA

Human Rights Council
Fortieth session
25 February–22 March 2019

Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka

Albania,* Australia, Austria, Belgium,* Bulgaria, Canada,* Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Finland,* France,* Georgia,* Germany,* Greece,* Iceland, Ireland,* Italy, Luxembourg,* Malta,*

Montenegro,* Netherlands,* New Zealand,* North Macedonia,* Norway,* Poland,* Romania,* San Marino,* Slovakia, Sri Lanka,* Sweden,* United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
The Human Rights Council,

Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,

Reaffirming Human Rights Council resolutions 30/1 of 1 October 2015 and 34/1 of 23 March 2017 on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka,

Recalling Human Rights Council resolutions 19/2 of 22 March 2012, 22/1 of 21 March 2013 and 25/1 of 27 March 2014,

Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population,

Reaffirming also its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka,

Recognizing the strong role played by democratic institutions in Sri Lanka in the peaceful resolution of the political situation that arose in Sri Lanka from October to December 2018,

Welcoming the establishment of the Office on Missing Persons in September 2017 and the appointment of its commissioners in February 2018, and the assumption of its work to fully implement its mandate,

Welcoming also the visits made by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, from 10 to 14 July 2017,1 the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, from 10 to 23 October 2017, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, from 4 to 15 December 2017,2 and the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, from 3 to 11 September 2018,3

Noting with appreciation the return of some private land previously occupied by the military to civilian ownership, while recalling the repeated public commitments made by the Government of Sri Lanka to release all private land occupied by the military to enable local populations to resume their livelihoods,

Noting other steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to implement Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, including the progress made 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 of 1978 and the preparation of a draft counter-terrorism act, while reiterating in this context the need for further significant progress and encouraging in this regard the adoption of a time-bound implementation strategy,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the comprehensive report presented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council at its fortieth session,4 pursuant to the request made by the Council in its resolution 34/1, and requests the Government of Sri Lanka to implement fully the measures identified by the Council in its resolution 30/1 that are outstanding;

2. Welcomes the positive engagement of the Government of Sri Lanka with the High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner since October 2015, and with relevant special procedure mandate holders, and encourages the continuation of that engagement in the promotion and protection of human rights and truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka;

3. Requests the Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special procedure mandate holders, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, to continue to strengthen their advice and technical assistance on the promotion and protection of human rights and truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka;

4. Requests the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to assess progress on the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant processes relating to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, and to present a written update to the Human Rights Council at its forty-third session, and a comprehensive report, to be followed by a discussion on the implementation of Council resolution 30/1, at its forty-sixth session.

Read as PDF:UNHRC Sri Lanka resolution march 2019
OHCHR

Transitional Justice Mechanisms in Sri Lanka (UN statement)

MARCH 20, 2019

The ICJ today called at the UN for prompt establishment of a judicial accountability mechanism with international involvement, for Sri Lanka.The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue on the OHCHR report on Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, read as follows:

“The ICJ welcomes the comprehensive report of the OHCHR on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka (A/HRC/40/23). We share OHCHR’s observation that there is a lack of progress and absence of a comprehensive strategy for implementation of all commitments made under Resolution 30/1.

ICJ is particularly concerned about the lack of progress in the area of criminal accountability (as noted in Paragraph 27 of the report). We believe that there is an urgent need to establish a judicial mechanism with the involvement of foreign judges. We echo the sentiments of the OHCHR regarding the inability of the Sri Lankan courts, on their own, to address the impunity of security forces for crimes under international law.

Failure of the criminal justice system to effectively address emblematic cases (as reflected in Paragraph 38 of the report) clearly indicates the level of capacity and willingness on the part of the State even today to prosecute and punish perpetrators of serious crimes when they are linked to the security forces or other positions of power.

ICJ also notes that women are grossly under-represented in the judiciary in Sri Lanka, which prevents women human rights defenders and female victims from having confidence in the ordinary criminal justice system, impeding their full engagement and participation in pursuing accountability for crimes committed against them during the conflict and other transitional justice processes.

A judicial mechanism with the involvement of foreign judges is particularly urgent for women in conflict-affected areas who still live in a highly militarized environment and are compelled to live among their perpetrators – those who have been accused of war crimes including rape and other forms of sexual violence.

We therefore reject calls for a purely domestic mechanism. Indeed, the ICJ considers that the continuing failure of the Government to ensure justice means that referral to the International Criminal Court or the creation of another international mechanism to facilitate criminal accountability would be fully warranted. The draft resolution before this session of the Council, reaffirming all elements of resolution 30/1, thus already represents a deep compromise and anything less than the existing text would be wholly unacceptable.

Sri Lanka refuses to hand back military occupied land

SRI LANKA'S FOREIGN MINISTER TILAK MARAPANA ADDRESSES THE 40TH REGULAR SESSION OF THE UNHRC - MARCH 21, 2019

By Athula Vithanage- 22 MARCH 2019

Thousands of acres of land occupied by the military in northern Sri Lanka will not be released to their rightful owners despite ongoing protests.

Scores of war displaced Tamil families have been protesting for more than two years by the wayside opposite sprawling camps built over their traditional lands demanding the military to vacate.

Their land “would continue to be held by the security forces” Sri Lankan foreign minister adamantly told the UN rights body reviewing the country’s human rights record.

Leading a cross party delegation to the UN Human Rights Commission convening in Geneva for its 40th session he disputed a report by the UN top rights official quoting government figures, which said that only 75% of occupied land have been released so far.

“Of the 28,215.29 acres of the private land held by the Security Forces since May 2009, 26,005.17 acres (92.16%) have been released as at 12th,” Sri Lanka Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana told the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

“However, the remaining lands, which are a necessity in the context of national security, would continue to be held by the security forces, with compensation being paid in respect of privately-owned lands.”

Figures released by the ministry of defence in January said that the military has only released 75% of occupied land.

It further stated that almost 29,000 acres of private land was occupied.

National security V “casteism”

Although Minister Marapana referred to "national security" as justification for the continuing occupation of private land, a day before, Sri Lanka’s president blamed what he called as “casteism among Tamils in the north"as the reason for the failures in redistributing the land.

“Due to casteism, authorities in those areas are distributing the released land according to their value among individuals who belong to different castes,” President Maithripala Sirisena toldrecipients at a university award ceremony.

Concerned about the land distribution process, the UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet had recommended an independent mechanism to handle the matter.

“Establish an independent mechanism to determine specific cases in which land must be allocated for military use owing to security reasons and identify appropriate compensation or substitution for land owners or occupants,” Michelle Bachelet said in her report.

Apart from releasing military occupied land, Sri Lanka in 2015 pledged to investigate alleged wartime abuses by its military with the involvement of foreign judges.

After dragging its feet for four years, Sri Lanka rejected its commitment for criminal accountability claiming for the first time that the country's law does not allow "non-citizens" as judges.

"The Government of Sri Lanka at the highest political levels, has both publicly and in discussions with the present and former High Commissioners for Human Rights and other interlocutors, explained the constitutional and legal challenges that precludes it from including non-citizens in its judicial processes. It has been explained that if non-citizen judges are to be appointed in such a process, it will not be possible without an amendment to the Constitution by 2/3 of members of the Parliament voting in favour and also the approval of the people at a Referendum," Minister Marapana, a lawyer himself, told the UNHRC.

'No proof of war crimes'

He also rejected any probe of the country's security forces, on the grounds that the UN findings are "not proven".

"At a time when the world is confronted with increasing acts of terrorism and violent extremism, as I stated before this Council last year, the action by the Sri Lankan security forces during the conflict was against a group designated as a terrorist organization by many countries, and not against any community. Further, it must be asserted that there are no proven allegations against individuals on war crimes or crimes against humanity in the OISL report of 2015 or in any subsequent official document. It is an injustice to deprive any serving or retired officer of the Sri Lankan security forces or the police of their rights."

Referring to war time abuses including extrajudicial killings, bombing of civilian assets, abductions, enforced disappearances, torture and sexual violence the OISL report concluded that the credible evidence it gathered deserves an independent judicial process.

“These patterns of conduct consisted of multiple incidents which occurred over time. They usually required considerable resources, coordination, planning and organisation, and were usually executed by a number of perpetrators within a hierarchical command structure. Such systemic acts, if established in a court of law, may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, and give rise to individual criminal responsibility,” it said.

In response to the uncompromising standpoint taken by the Sri Lankan government the human rights commissioner reiterated her call to take action against alleged perpetrators.

“My report records that in the absence of progress member states should consider the using universal jurisdiction principals to prosecute Sri Lanka against credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” said Michelle Bachelet.

She will be “carefully exploring other alternatives” eventually, the high commissioner told the UN assembly.

However, a resolution requesting the UNHRC to allow Sri Lanka to carry on with its present course of action was unanimously adopted a day after the Minister Marapana rejected the high commissioner's report. The resolution does not have any clause demanding international jurisdiction.☐

© JDS

Global Tamil Forum (GTF) calls for Time-bound Implementation of the UNHRC Resolution on Sri Lanka

(Lanka e News - 22.March.2019, 11.30PM) The Global Tamil Forum (GTF) acknowledges the passing of the resolution ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ (40/1) at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and thank all those who worked towards it, particularly the thirty-two countries that co-sponsored, among those the core-group that led this initiative. While we welcome continuous monitoring of human rights and accountability in Sri Lanka by the UNHRC, we are disappointed that the new resolution failed to set clear pathway for accelerated progress towards implementation of the Resolution 30/1.

There is strong disappointment in the Tamil community that ten years after the end of the war, and three years after Sri Lanka co-sponsored Resolution 30/1, there is very little progress on accountability and transitional justice. High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s report to the Council accurately describes this unfortunate reality - the minimalist initiatives by Sri Lanka ’have yet to produce concrete benefits for individual right holders’; ‘such slow progress in establishing meaningful transitional justice measures has engendered mistrust among victims and other stakeholders’; and that ‘Sri Lanka has failed to seize the opportunity provided by the Human Rights Council to establish a trustworthy domestic mechanism to address impunity.’

Therefore, the burning question among the victims and the Tamil community is – what difference is another resolution going to make, considering this is the seventh UNHRC resolution in the decade after the end of the war? It is this dismal performance by the Sri Lankan government and the increasing frustration among the victims that UNHRC will not be able to course-correct Sri Lanka towards an acceptable pace of progress that contribute to calls by many that UNHRC should refer Sri Lanka to the UN Security Council for further action.

Resolution 40/1 seriously falls short of required action – Sri Lanka's abject failure and delay in implementing its key commitments, the continuing sufferings of the victims and their families, and the need for accelerated progress on constitutional reform for devolution of power have not merited mention; and it does not set timelines and benchmarks to guide and monitor progress. Our minimum expectation for this resolution was to incorporate a time-bound action plan with the involvement of the OHCHR – very much in alignment with High Commissioner’s recommendation. While the need for a time-bound implementation strategy is acknowledged, it is disappointing that the resolution lacks specificities of how it will become operational. It is our earnest request that such an operational arrangement be worked out as an urgent priority with the full involvement of the OHCHR.

We call upon the international community and the key UNHRC member countries to ensure two unambiguous messages are conveyed to the people and the leaders of Sri Lanka:

Accountability for the atrocity crimes committed in Sri Lanka via faithful and timely implementation of Resolutions (30/1,34/1,40/1) is a must, and that the absence of which will have consequences – may that be diplomatic, judicial or economic as appropriate; and

Assurance to the community of victims of all different backgrounds that they will not be abandoned before achieving a sense of justice, closure and the reforms needed for non-recurrence.

Such strongly articulated positions are critical to emphasize urgency and commitment to the political leadership of the country and to prevent the victims’ further descent into despair.

We firmly believe that steady progress and eventual success of the current transitional justice initiatives in Sri Lanka is crucial – not only to maintain and enhance the reputation of the UNHRC as an effective UN organ capable of living up to its creation mandate, but also specifically for Sri Lanka to prevent any seeds of potential conflict germinating in the hopeless and desperate situation most victims find themselves in.

We urge member states to take note of the High Commissioner’s recommendation that they “investigate and prosecute, wherever possible, in particular in accordance with universal jurisdiction principles, those allegedly responsible for such violations as torture, enforced disappearance, war crimes or crimes against humanity; and explore other options to advance accountability in the absence of credible domestic processes.” We also urge member states to consider adopting parallel processes on accountability to supplement efforts by the UNHRC to deal with atrocity crimes in Sri Lanka during and after the war that ended ten years ago.

Press Statement of GTF

---------------------------
by (2019-03-22 18:55:45)

Mangala’s rebuttal of Mahinda’s critique: some comments

by Rajeewa Jayaweera-March 23, 2019, 12:00 pm

Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera, in a scathing attack, has condemned former President and current Leader of Opposition Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) for challenging the Wickremesinghe government’s decision to co-sponsor the rollover of UNHRC Resolutions 30/1 and 34/1 for a further two-year period.

The role of the Leader of Opposition and the main Opposition party in any democracy is to question the government of the day on their policies and hold them accountable to the public.The Leader of Opposition is also a sort of Prime Minister in waiting. Perhaps Mangala has forgotten this salient feature in parliamentary democracy. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) appointed as the main opposition party in parliament by the Yahapalana government in September 2015 made itself an appendage of the government and focused only on the welfare of its community. Under the circumstances, it is understandable that Mangala and many others have forgotten the role of the Leader of Opposition in a parliamentary democracy.

The root cause for MR’s criticism and Mangala’s rebuttal is based on the co-sponsoring of the Geneva Resolution by the Yahapalana government since 2015 and the current Wickremesinghe government’s decision to co-sponsor its rollover by a further two years.

At the outset it must be stated, Sri Lanka is in this sorry situation entirely due to the ineptitude and lack of foresight of the 2010-2015 Rajapaksa administration. After defeating LTTE terrorism in May 2009, the administration paid attention to the infrastructure development in the North and East but failed to address the grievances and political aspirations of the Tamil community. Its failure to implement the recommendations of the LLRC is unpardonable and gave foreign meddlers the excuse it needed to intervene. Furthermore, considerable damage was done to the country’s foreign relations by appointing a Monitor who had barely passed his GCE ‘O’ levels examination to direct (often overriding the Foreign Minister) and monitor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Military-to-Military cooperation

Reverting to Mangala’s broadside, he claims "Our military which Mahinda claims to be the guardian of was losing heavily as they were deprived of military-to-military cooperation with the countries which have the most advanced militaries in the world. They were deprived of training opportunities, particularly in UN peacekeeping and in joint exercises."

One is baffled. Mangala was a cabinet minister in President CBK’s government from 1994 till 2001 and once again from 2004 till 2005 after which he was a member of MR’s cabinet from 2005 till 2007 when he was sacked. During this time, despite repeated requests for foreign military assistance to combat LTTE terrorism, has he forgotten that western nations including the US for whom he bats frequently, and India declined assistance and even the sale of military hardware? Where were the naval flotillas seen so often in present times in Colombo and Trincomalee ports? Where were the training exercises that have now become a regular feature? Is it not a fact, military-to-military cooperation currently taking place has little to do with assisting Sri Lanka but everything to do with the Indo-US power play against China in the Indo-Pacific region? In agreeing to numerous military exercises and making Sri Lanka, a logistical hub for the US armed forces in return for a few crumbs off the table such as the USD 480 million grant from US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), has not the Wickremesinghe government in which Mangala is a senior minister exchanged the nation’s sovereignty for some pottage?

Universal Jurisdiction

Mangala states, "Mahinda appears unaware that any country in the world can already investigate and prosecute disappearances and other war crimes alleged to have taken place in any other country in the world because most countries in the world today have today already signed treaties to deny safe haven to war criminals!"

Two of the greatest war criminals of the 20th century since WWII are former US President George W Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The infamous weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) used to justify the invasion of Iraq but yet to be found, bringing untold misery to ordinary Iraqi citizens, sectarian violence resulting in the death of thousands of Iraqis, several torture chambers such as Abu Ghraib and the murder of innocent civilians by military contractors such as Black Water would have justified the prosecution of these two criminals. Why has the US and UK, and Mangala’s so-called "most countries in the world who have already signed treaties" not prosecuted Bush and Blair?

The fact is, countries such as the US and UK have never done so and will never do so to their leaders, regardless of the magnitude of their crimes. Neither will UNHRC. They will only prosecute hapless third world leaders and countries in Asia and Africa, ably supported by their poodles in such countries. This writer believes, the appropriate word is neocolonialism.

The US announcement last week, that it will revoke or deny visas to members of the International Criminal Court involved in investigating the actions of US troops in Afghanistan or other countries. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced, "I’m announcing a policy of US visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of US personnel.These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts.We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course."

`11

Not to be outdone, the UK government has announced, it will not accept the 13-1 non-binding verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hauge. It ruled Britain must cede control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and permit the Chagos people, forcibly removed in the 1960s to return to their land of birth, currently leased out to the Americans as a military facility.

Such is the respect these nations show for International Law but insist third world countries must follow.

Mangala is a self-confessed dreamer. One wonders if the erstwhile Foreign Minister is aware of these developments? If he does, how can he ignore such partiality by the international community in general and UNHRC in particular and support these international busybodies (his words in 2003 but more on that later) by co-sponsoring the Geneva Resolution?

The case of foreign expertise

Mangala ridicules MR’s use of Lord Naseby’s revelations of British Defense Attaché Lt. Co. Anton Gash’s confidential dispatches as well as written opinions by eminent experts Sir Desmond de Silva QC, Professor David Crane, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, Rodney Dixon QC, and Professor Michael Newton while rejecting international experts in future mechanisms to deal with human rights violations. He claims, "Global expertise is needed, we collaborate and work with international experts on almost everything we do in this country."

The names mentioned earlier, though engaged by the then GoSL are all internationally recognized experts with impeccable credentials and proven track records.They have worked for several international organization including UNO. Their integrity is beyond question. Why were their opinions not tabled by Mangala at the UNHRC and why has the Yalahapalana and Wickremesinghe governments not called for the tabling of the confidential reports of Lt. Col. Anton Gash in unredacted form for scrutiny?

MR’s opposition to foreign experts in any mechanism is justified as Sri Lanka will have no choice in their appointments.They will be forced upon Sri Lanka by UNHRC. This is an organization recently branded by the USA as a "cesspool of political bias" and has repeatedly failed to demonstrate impartiality, Bush and Blair being two such examples.UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s report during the 40th UNHRC session contained distorted figures of land held in the North by the military. She also pre supposes on mass graves. How can Sri Lanka accept expertise from such an organization also driven by a group of countries known to promote the anti-Sri Lanka agenda of Tamil diaspora groups in their countries for electoral gains?

It is also relevant to mention, Mangal in his previous Avatar in 2003 accused Norwegian peacemakers initially invited by former President CBK of having "not shown any sensitivity to the feelings of Sri Lankans." He went on to castigate the Norwegians stating,"Of course we can’t expect anything better from a nation of salmon-eaters who turned into international busybodies."

Affirming the honor of the institutions of the army, navy and air force

Whether there is any honor in our soldiers performing peacekeeping duties in trouble spots the world over for a few dollars to which western nations will not send their own troops is debatable.

What is disturbing and the Wickremesinghe government and Mangala have ignored the plight of some senior military officials barred from attending training programs overseas due to unproven accusations of war crimes. The same goes for several former senior military officers now in retirement who are not granted visas to travel on the same charge.

It must be remembered, many of our senior politicians including Mangala when in office moved around the South till May 2009 surrounded by soldiers and commanded by these gallant officers. Some of these politicians may be alive today without being blown to smithereens thanks to these very same officers. It is regrettable that the poor souls who were blown up in the many LTTE explosions were ordinary folks not entitled for such protection whereas those who were eligible and lived to see better days will not raise a finger in defense of such officers.

It is by no means to say, soldiers and officers accused of criminal offenses should be allowed to go scot free. They need to be dealt with using the full force of the law. The inability of this government to conclude any of the several pending cases reflect its poor governance.

Mangala accuses MR of not investigating child abductors. It would be appropriate to ask Mangala, what has the government he represents done on the same issue for nearly four years?

Zilch!