Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Five-minute 'needle' nose job?

2 April 2019

A speedy 'non-surgical' nose job that takes just minutes may be possible using tiny needles and an electric current, US researchers believe.

Bendy cartilage structures - like ears and the tip of the nose - can be remodelled with electromechanical reshaping (EMR), they claim.

It would be done under local anaesthetic, saving patients cuts, stitches and scars, a science conference in Florida heard.

No human tests have been done yet.

The researchers have tried EMR on animals. It was able to change a rabbit's ears from upright to bent.

How does it work?

Cartilage is rubbery to the touch, but is made up of tiny strands of a protein, called collagen, linked together by other small proteins.

It is flexible, yet holds its shape.

EMR involves passing an electric current through the tissue (via small needles) to make the cartilage pliable for reshaping.

One of the researchers, Dr Michael Hill, said: "Once the tissue is floppy you can mould it to whatever shape you want."

The researchers believe that once the tissue has been reshaped and allowed to 'set' or harden for a few minutes (with the current off), the change should be permanent.

Dr Hill and his colleague Prof Brian Wong, from the University of California, told the American Chemical Society meeting that EMR could be useful for treating other conditions, such as tight tendons and vision problems caused by the shape of the front of the eye (the cornea).

Long way off

Prof Iain Whitaker is a plastic surgeon at Swansea University Medical School and a member of the British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

He said although the work was interesting, it was much too soon to tell whether it might be something that could be offered to patients.

"It's always good to look for new ways to reduce the invasiveness of surgery but it could be tricky to move this work into human trials," he said.

"You'd need ethical and regulatory approval, and to know that it was safe.

"If it works like the researchers hope, then I can see how it might be useful for reshaping something like prominent ears.

"Noses might be a bit more limited because about a third of the nose is bone. You might be able to reshape the nasal tip perhaps."

A concern is whether manipulating the cartilage might damage it.

"It's not exactly clear yet how this procedure works. We don't know if the integrity will hold up and there could be a risk of adverse results," he said.

Dr Hill said the procedure involves temporarily changing the acidity or pH of tissues and that it would be important to make sure this did not cause any damaging side effects before doing human trials or offering it to patients. More tests are needed.

What can go wrong with a 'regular' nose job?

Rhinoplasty, or nose reshaping, is an operation, done under general anaesthetic (meaning the patient is asleep), to change the shape or size of the nose.

If you are getting it done for cosmetic reasons, it is unlikely that the NHS will provide it and you will have to pay (upwards of around £4,500).

The surgeon may remove or rearrange the cartilage and bone in the nose and make cuts to the covering skin (open rhinoplasty) or inside the nostrils (closed rhinoplasty).

Nose reshaping surgery can occasionally result in:

permanent breathing difficulty
damage to the cartilage wall between your nostrils
an altered sense of smell
heavy nosebleeds

Any type of operation also carries a small risk of:

excessive bleeding
developing a blood clot in a vein
infection
an allergic reaction to the anaesthetic

Source: NHS Choices

Monday, April 1, 2019

Sri Lankan justice is ‘slow and not delivering’ – OHCHR

Mona Rishmawi (FCO).jpg

File photograph of Mona Rishamawi (Photograph: Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

01 April 2019

The Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch of the UN Office at the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said Sri Lanka’s current justice system is “slow and it’s not delivering” in an interview earlier this week.

Speaking to The Morning Mona Rishmawi said emblematic cases “are blocked because of the local justice system” and called on Sri Lanka to comply with a UN resolution that mandates foreign judges participating in an accountability mechanism.

“Resolution 30/1 proposes obtaining foreign assistance,” she said. “If Sri Lanka is not prepared to do so, then they must propose an alternative. Focusing on the nationality of the judge is not important but what is important is how to unblock this accountability problem. We need to see that justice is done. Right now, we see the process is slow and it’s not delivering.”

Whilst she said that there had been “positive steps” by Colombo, she said Sri Lanka should “refocus attention on the implementation of this Resolution”.

“I think we can refocus attention on the implementation of this Resolution. What has happened over the last few days is a little distraction. Instead of saying we have something positive to work with the international community on; there is a distraction on what was said and what was not said. This is not helpful because the Resolution is the Resolution and the report by the High Commissioner is very clear; and the High Commissioner stands by her report.”

“The recommendations are basically an agreed framework. What we want to see is if the recommendations will be implemented or not. So you have a baseline which is Resolution 30/1 and we now see what has been implemented and how we can make sure the rest are implemented so Sri Lanka looks good”.

“That is what we have been asked to do. The High Commissioner has been asked to continue to assess the progress in the implementation of the recommendations in the Resolutions, particularly 30/1 of 2015. That is really our role.”

Rishmawi concluded by saying,

“If the Government does not want us to be there, then what is their alternative? Doing nothing is not an alternative.”

See the full text of her interview here.

Her comments come after several Sri Lankan leaders, including the president, have publicly rejected the terms of the UN resolution, which includes the setting up of a hybrid accountability mechanism. Sri Lanka’s foreign minister earlier told the UN Human Rights Council that his government would not allow foreign judges to participate in such a mechanism.

SRI LANKA: HYBRID COURT: FOLLOW IIGEP EXAMPLE SAYS WIGNESWARAN

30/03/2019

The Hybrid Court could be constituted following the example of the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) under the Chairmanship of Justice Bhagavathy, former Northern Province Chief Minister and former Supreme Court Judge C.V. Wigneswaran said.

“Having already granted nearly four years by Resolutions Numbers 30/1 and 34/1, the granting of a further two years through Resolution 40/L.1 by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on 21 March 2019 has saddened Tamils world over. This new Resolution would facilitate war criminals and those who indulged in offences against humanity to escape liability. The Resolution will also pave the way for the continuance of human rights’ violations in Sri Lanka.

It was unfortunate that some among us lent support to the military, which raped our women and girls in hundreds (if not thousands) apart from committing genocide against the Tamils, to escape from liability,” he claimed.

Further, he said that over three years have passed since the passing of Resolution 30/1.
“Not only has the Sri Lankan Government not endeavoured to implement its commitments as per the Resolution but has gone further to reject its obligation to implement while at the same time co-sponsoring Resolution 40/L.1 which obligated the appointment of a hybrid court as per Resolution 30/1. The Sri Lankan Government recently officially rejected at the UNHRC the appointment of a hybrid court.

This shows the duplicity of the Government. Their credibility is no doubt at stake. If the Government could go back on their written promises to the UN so quickly, the International Community should gauge the number of times it would have transgressed agreements in relation to the ethnic problem in the past so many decades ago and to what extent it would have practised deception on the Tamils, thus frustrating their legitimate expectations. When genocide was committed in Sri Lanka, the UN and the International Community failed to stop it.

After the war, the UN and the International Community had an obligation to ensure accountability and justice. But the UN and the International Community has allowed Sri Lanka to take lightly its obligations towards ensuring accountability and justice in Sri Lanka. This would no doubt enable the Government to continue with its human rights’ violations in the future too. This would be a bad example to the rest of the world in general.

If the war crimes at the end of the war in Sri Lanka were investigated properly in accordance with International Law, its norms and principles and the perpetrators punished, the International Community would have stopped war crimes being committed elsewhere in the world,” he also claimed.

“Therefore, I make bold to request all the countries which helped to pass Resolution 40/L.1 to ensure that the contents of Resolution 30/1 are implemented fully and without delay. These Member States must take steps to put into effect the various recommendations set out by the Human Rights’ High Commissioner,” he said.

“Three years ago, it was stressed in Resolution 30/1 that the military must leave the lands of civilians. But even today the military does continue to occupy civilian lands. On 1 August 2005, then President Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed the IIGEP under the Chairmanship of former Indian Chief Justice P.N. Bhagavati to overlook the investigations conducted by the Udalagama Commission, inquiring into 16 human rights’ violations in Sri Lanka. That could be a precedent to be followed with regard to war crimes too.

The IIGEP consisting of foreign judges was an illustrative example of how the inclusion of foreign judges introduced International standards and also brought credibility among the affected people.

When the IIGEP found that the Udalagama Commission investigation and its activities did not conform to International standards and norms and lacked transparency, Justice Bhagawati after one year of the beginning of the Investigation, disbanded the IIGEP and refused to grant approval to the activities of the Commission.

That was a classic example which answered the question ‘Why not a local court instead of a Hybrid Court’,” he claimed further.

“It may not be out of place for me to mention here that late Justice Mark Fernando and I were consulted by the IIGEP before they disbanded. We were both retired Supreme Court Judges,” he said.
Ceylon Today

Inequality and its Persistence in Jaffna

1 April 2019

Inequality is now one of the most internationally researched and debated social issues. Rising income inequalities between and within countries after the neo-liberal turn of the 1970s

gained further attention with the global economic crisis of 2008. As inequality became a central concern of studies on development and social change, contemporary free market capitalism has come under increasing scrutiny with debates focusing on the obscene concentration of wealth of the top one percent.

As we all know, income inequality has been rising rapidly in Sri Lanka after the open economy reforms of 1978. The Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2016 indicates that the top 10% of the population gets 35.4% and the bottom 10% of the population gets a mere 1.6% of the total national household income.

Inequalities manifest in different ways and are contingent on place and the attendant social relations. Here, I discuss the causes and manifestation of inequality in rural Jaffna, in particular how caste-based inequality in the form of landlessness has persisted over generations.

Silence on caste

Unlike in India, in Sri Lanka there is a silencing of caste in policy and even scholarly discourse. There is no caste census and few demands placed along caste lines. Furthermore, in places like Jaffna, the dominant narrative on caste is that it is no longer a significant social determinant.

However, caste structure works through stealth making it difficult to analyse its social, economic and political impact. A possible way out of this conundrum is to examine forms of caste exclusion, both in social institutions and in state services, and consider the caste makeup of those on the margins to shed light on the link between inequality and caste.

Due to the silencing of discussions and mobilisations around caste relations and identities, I suggest beginning with the most excluded from society. I characterise the absolutely landless -- those without ten perches of land to build a house -- as at the bottom of the inequality pyramid.

Landlessness and exclusion

The landless have been the subject of considerable international and Sri Lankan research, but only when it comes to land reform relating to agricultural land, which is the most important asset for rural incomes. Similarly, there are extensive studies on the lack of housing land for slum dwellers in cities. However, the situation of the absolutely landless – those who lack housing land – in the rural arena has been neglected. If we research the absolutely landless, we begin to see the deeper roots of caste-based exclusion.

The issue of the absolutely landless has cropped up amidst extensive state and donor post-war housing programmes in the North. In the Jaffna District, out of a total of 150,000 families

resident, about 27,000 houses need to be built for the homeless and those residing in temporary housing. Yet, out of the 27,000 about 15,000 are absolutely landless. The landless have been consistently excluded from housing programmes after the war. The rule is simple, if you do not own ten perches of land, you are automatically disqualified from post-war housing grants. This means that the most deprived population in the district is excluded from obtaining a state grant.

What is unique about the situation in Jaffna is that such landlessness is not linked to urbanisation. Out of the 15 Divisional Secretariat (DS) Divisions in the Jaffna District, the landless in the semi-urban Jaffna DS and Nallur DS are only about 3,700 families. However, an additional 12,000 landless families live in the other 13 primarily rural DS in the District. The rural landless are fairly dispersed and many squat on private and temple lands, or live with relatives.

"In the Jaffna District, out of a total of 150,000 families, about 27,000 houses need to be built for the homeless and for those who live in temporary housing"

While state lands in Jaffna are scarce due to the historically small holding intensive agricultural practice in the Jaffna District, population pressure is not the problem. In fact, the population of Jaffna District was 730,000 in 1981, but dropped to 580,000 (Census of Population and Housing 2012). In fact, if not for the war and migration, and if Jaffna District’s population had grown along national lines at an annual average population growth of 1.02%, it would have been over one million by 2012.

In other words, landlessness in housing land in Jaffna District is neither due to urbanisation nor population pressure. It is better explained by two other factors. First, the lack of state redistribution programmes including by purchasing private lands or seizing idle lands and providing them as housing land for the absolutely landless. Second, caste structure, which has excluded oppressed castes from landownership and avenues of accumulating wealth towards land ownership, over generations. In fact, the Vellalarsmall holding farmers in Jaffna readily admit in public forums that they built their cement houses during the cash crop boom of the import substitution decades in the 1960s and 1970s. Sadly, many of the oppressed caste landless labourers who toiled, and still toil to this day, on Vellalar owned farms remain both without a house and a small plot to build a house.

Struggles for equality

The caste character of the bottom 10% of Jaffna’s population in terms of incomes and land ownership needs further research. The persistence of this form of inequality has to do with the silencing of caste since the major anti-caste struggles in Jaffna in the 1960s into the 1970s. As of then, caste issues have been over-determined by narrow Tamil nationalist politics, which, in turn, have been fuelled by Sinhala Buddhist majoritarian state policies, and their subsequent escalation into the tragedy of war and devastation.

While caste oppression has been silenced for decades, as with any other form of marginalisation and exclusion, it cannot remain suppressed for long. Two years ago, anti-caste struggles in Jaffna sought to reclaim upper caste cemetery lands adjacent to oppressed caste villages. Those struggles were as much about claiming idle land for housing by oppressed caste people, as they were about the dignity of the oppressed caste people confronting the dominant caste’s arrogant insistence of cremating their dead in a manner disrupting and polluting oppressed caste village life. And a year ago, coming out of the cemetery struggles and decades-long frustration of exclusion from state services, the local government elections in Jaffna saw a number of independent oppressed caste candidates winning electorates and gaining representation. Those electoral mobilisations likely to advance in the upcoming elections are in fact moves putting forward demands for equality.

Returning to the question of inequality, the concentration of wealth in this country and around the world among the top ten and even one percent of the population is a curse for any decent society. Such tremendous concentration of wealth is a consequence of the latest stage of capitalism, characterised by financialisation and free markets. However, understanding the dynamics and the persistence of forms of inequality throughout the last few centuries of capitalism, will require analysis that begins with the subaltern classes, those at the very bottom that were and continue to be excluded.

Value of president’s three-track approach to drug problem

By Jehan Perera-April 1, 2019, 9:09 pm

When President Maithripala Sirisena first took up the challenge of tackling the country’s drug problem its critics saw it as an idiosyncratic exercise that would soon fizzle out. The president’s championing of the death penalty made it seem to be more an individual rather than as a collective position of the government. Although Sri Lanka has had the death penalty in its laws, and public opinion surveys show popular backing for it, the death penalty has not been implemented for over four decades. The Buddhist ethos that is dominant in the country is one in which the taking of life is not condoned. In addition, the country has ratified international agreements in which the spirit is to protect human life under all circumstances.

Contrary to expectations, the president’s campaign against drugs has been both expanding and bearing fruit. Every week, if not every day, there are news flashes about the arrest of yet another drug dealer or about the apprehension of yet another huge consignment of drugs. President Sirisena has sought to dispel any doubts about his seriousness to vanquish the drug lords. He has declared publicly that April 1 being April Fool’s day nor not, that the public destruction of a vast quantity of drugs that have been seized, will indeed take place. He has also promised to ensure that the destruction of other stocks of drugs that have been seized would take place publicly on a regular basis. This transparency will lay to rest the doubts in the minds of those who have a critical orientation towards the government.

The president’s resolute leadership in tackling the drug-related problems has also had the outcome of bringing other social and political forces into the anti-drugs campaign. An example would be the recent protest march and rally organized in Mattakkuliya by the Catholic Church led by Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith in which the president, prime minister and senior members of the government participated. The Cardinal issued a pastoral letter urging all parishes and institutions to stage a demonstration on key roads in Colombo on March 31 after Sunday Mass denouncing drug trafficking. President Sirisena’s personal interest in the issue has given an umbrella of protection to those who might otherwise not have wished to tackle a dangerous issue in which those who have a lot to lose could be dangerous enemies.

THREE TRACKS

In addition to the main anti-drug event that took place in Mattakkuliya on Sunday that was attended by thousands of participants, there were also small scale events that took place simultaneously in all 130 parishes in the vicinity of Catholic Churches in the Colombo area. One such event took place under the leadership of Fr Felician Perera, the parish priest of St Mary’s Church, Bambalapitiya. Over a hundred people engaged in a march on the main road. They carried banners and placards calling for an end to drug trafficking and to the havoc it was creating within families.

As explained by Fr Felician on this occasion there is a need for a three track approach to dealing with the drug problem. The first track would be to create awareness about the problem of the drug trade and drug addiction and the danger that this poses to society including to those who are not currently being affected by the problem. Very often those who are not directly affected by a problem prefer not to get involved in dealing with it. They hope that the problem will not come to them. This leads to a lack of public spiritedness and to general apathy. There is a need for a process of confidence building to enable people who have got traumatized by the human rights violations and governance under a state of emergency during the long period of war, to lose their fear and sense of being vulnerable to those who might act against them outside of the law.

The second track is to strengthen the sense of community by engaging in joint activities. This spirit was evident in those who participated in the march and rally at Bambalapitiya. There was a discussion about how the drug problem was coming closer home and how even children of families living in the vicinity of the church have fallen victim to the problem of drug addiction. At the conclusion of the joint activities there was a request that the joint action should not end with this one, but should also take on the challenges of other problems such as corruption.

ADDRESSING ROOTS

The third track that needs to be taken on is to deal with the roots of the problem. If this problem is not tackled, then all that is being done is to engage in firefighting, where one fire is extinguished only to restart elsewhere. So far it appears that many of those being arrested are more in the middle tier of drug trafficking than at its core. Getting to the core requires an act of political will and courage, where the leadership of the government decides to crack down and actively pursue those who are breaking the law and are behind this ultra-lucrative trade. At the Mattakkuliya rally, President Sirisena promised to end the drug problem within three months. With less than a year to go before he relinquishes the presidency President Sirisena may be thinking about the legacy he will leave the country.

At the very beginning of his term as president, President Sirisena on his own volition made the most important change for good governance and better justice in the country by passing the 19th Amendment to the constitution that reduced the president’s powers and strengthened the institutions responsible for law and order and justice, especially the courts and the police. The 19th Amendment was far reaching because it also strengthened other independent institutions too, such as the public service commission and the human rights commission. This has made governance in Sri Lanka less arbitrary and more law abiding than what it was. There is today less fear and more freedom for individuals to protest and to oppose the government than there was in the past.

The parallel to the ethnic conflict that continues to divide and debilitate the country is worth noting. The three track solution has applicability to this problem as well. The first track would be to create awareness about the issues that arise when ethnic majorities and ethnic minorities coexist in the same polity. They each have their own historical experiences and fears which are passed down generation by generation. There is also a need to engage in social cohesion activities that bring the different ethnic communities together, such as at the time of traditional festivals. The forthcoming Sinhala and Tamil New Year would offer such an opportunity. But most of all there is the need for political leadership to resolve the ethnic conflict, such as what President Sirisena is giving to put an end to the drug problem.

ETI depositors and public funds – An open letter to Eran Wickremaratne

Tuesday, 2 April 2019

Dear Minister – with due respect, it is the public deposits of the depositors of the ETI that are at stake here. They are not, repeat not, the private funds of the directors and the shareholders, notwithstanding that they have been fraudulently used as such! They are the legitimate funds of the public of this country, in a licensed, regulated finance company. So why then shouldn’t public funds be used to bail out these depositors, particularly where their funds have been used, fraudulently, by the directors of the ETI in breach of their fiduciary responsibility to the public at large?

The ETI is not a Ponzi Scheme dear Minister, like the Golden Key was and where, quite audaciously, public funds were permitted to be used to pay up to as much as 40% of their claims! Why then the double standards when it comes to the participants of the licensed, regulated financial system of this country. Your statement only further erodes investor and depositor confidence in the integrity of the financial system of this country which is largely propped up by public funds of innocent depositors.

If the sale of the assets of the ETI are insufficient to pay out the legitimate claims of the ETI’s depositors, then they have every right to expect to be paid out of public funds, in the same way as the depositors of the illegal, unregulated, Golden Key were paid with ‘taxpayer money’. In the alternative, the ETI should be liquidated as it is insolvent, and has been so for well over a decade, and the legitimate claims of the depositors under the Deposit Insurance Scheme (DIS) paid, up to a maximum of Rs. 600,000.

The majority of depositors will benefit from such a liquidation undoubtedly, instead of a meagre 30% of their deposits being paid after so much procrastination by the Central Bank. Surely this is common sense. Exercising the Right to Information, the Central Bank must inform the public about how many depositors will benefit from 100% of their claims being paid under the DIS. These depositors can then exercise their rights to demand that the company be liquidated.

The sale of assets can then take place by the liquidator through due process, to pay back all those depositors who have more than 600,000 in the company. If the majority of the depositors stand to benefit from the liquidation of the company then that is the just, equitable and common sense option the Central Bank should go for, if they are indeed acting in the best interests of the depositors and not to safeguard the interests of the directors and shareholders of the ETI.

What is at stake here? The credibility of the Central Bank as the regulator of the financial system of this country and the credibility of the safety net mechanism of the mandatory Deposit Insurance Scheme as an essential pre-requisite of a well-regulated, robust financial system.

We cannot be complacent about the delays in the legal process where criminal misappropriation of public funds has taken place so blatantly. Public servants such as the Minister must make every effort to pursue a more speedy expedition of justice for all those directors of these failed financial institutions to prosecute and imprison them. To date, not a single director of the many failed FCs, many of whom are prominent names in the business arena of the country, have been prosecuted and imprisoned.

It was the eminent Singaporean economist Mahubani who gave the example of how Singapore dealt with fraud and corruption in sacking one of their Ministers, to show that it is those at the top who should be dealt with first, to send the message to the rest of society. On the contrary, we find that in the case of the ETI, the regulator is still talking to the errant directors through whom all investor interest is channelled as stated in the CBSL’s press releases, to whatever secondary mechanism the regulator has established.

These are the directors, who in the words of the Minister, have consistently violated regulatory directives. They are now entrusted with the sale of the assets of the company which rightfully belong to the depositors. They have still not been asked to resign which is, inter alia, the prompt corrective action demanded from the regulator as soon as a deposit-taking, regulated, financial institution is insolvent.

It therefore begs the question – Are those who wilfully caused the failure of the ETI with the fraudulent misuse of public funds, in breach of their fiduciary responsibility, now trustworthy to act in the best interests of the depositors in dealing with the assets of the ETI, which is the only salvation for the depositors?

If indeed, the Minister says, the non-bank finance companies sector is not well regulated, he has been ill-informed. Since 1979 with the enactment of The Control of Finance Companies Act, No. 27 of 1979, the legal framework has been twice repealed and strengthened in reaction to the many FC failures, in 1988 and finally with a more robust piece of legislation in the form of the Finance Business Act, No. 42 of 2011. The FBA is well-equipped to deal with instability in the NBFI sector on par with the legal and regulatory framework applicable to the banking sector.

Moreover, the legal framework is supplemented by a very effective and efficient offsite surveillance system which captures and disseminates to the supervisory staff, the early warning signs of impending problems which are reflected in the data received every month. Early intervention and prompt corrective action are the two critical elements thus in arresting any further deterioration in the financial condition of the FCs.

In this background therefore it is evident that this has not happened consistently over the last two decades. This is where the Minister should focus his attention – to find out how these insolvent institutions were permitted to function for almost a decade, alongside their strong, solvent peers, thereby deluding the depositing public from believing that they were financially sound. Is this not a breach of regulatory responsibility which is tantamount to regulatory failure, for which the regulator should be held accountable? What is the message these statements convey to the depositing public? If the regulator fails in its mandatory responsibility to effectively regulate these institutions, it should then surrender this responsibility to whoever else is capable of doing so.

In the alternative it should progressively close down the non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs), or merge them with the banking institutions, taking the cue from Malaysia, and save the innocent depositing public from being misled into believing that they are safe and sound institutions in which they can repose their trust. As long as the NBFIs are permitted to function, it is imperative and obligatory that the regulator discharges its regulatory responsibility to safeguard the interests of the depositors in them. They cannot be permitted to abrogate this responsibility so easily.

In conclusion may I ask why there is so much complacency about the safety of the public funds of the depositing public in a, seemingly, regulated financial system, where fraudulent directors, legal delays, regulatory failure, are all taken for granted and the innocent depositors become the sacrificial lambs?

Aren’t the funds involved in at least two of the big failed institutions, The Finance and ETI, close to over Rs. 50 billion, much more than the much-publicised bond scam and where civil society and the media have raised such a furore? What does it take to evoke the same, or even greater commitment, to the plight of the innocent, depositors of the regulated financial system of this country, is the million dollar question that requires the immediate attention of public servants of the calibre of Eran Wickremaratne.

(The writer is former Director of Bank Supervision and Advisor to the Governor of the Central Bank, Independent Consultant and freelance writer to the financial press.)

The truth about the Geneva Human Rights Council Resolution

By Mangala Samaraweera-

(Lanka-e-News -01.April.2019, 11.30PM) During the past few weeks, I have been watching the many headlines, debates, misinformation, misrepresentation of facts as well as self-congratulatory statements by some members of the delegation that went to Geneva to participate in the 40th session of the Human Rights Council where the High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet presented the Report on Sri Lanka as requested by the Human Rights Council.

As the person who held the portfolio of Foreign Affairs when resolution 30/1 of 01 October 2015 was adopted, I feel that it is my duty to respond to some of the malicious arguments being made and misrepresentation of facts.

I saw some statements claim that the initial delegation to the Human Rights Council’s 40th session in March 2019 was changed. This, like most reports attempting to mislead the public, is false. There is also an abundance of gossip about the delegation and undignified attacks against devoted public servants. Contrary to what is being said, there were no plans to send anyone to Geneva originally for the 40th session as we have a competent, experienced, respected diplomat as our Ambassador to the UN in Geneva who is well-versed in procedure and substance and who has always managed things in a professional and dignified manner, based on instructions, with no attempts to blow his own trumpet like some do. And unlike some others who held this post earlier, the present Ambassador is completely apolitical with no hidden agenda to embarrass the Government of the day or our country.

Initially I thought that the diplomatic event at the 40th session of the Human Rights Council would be a show of Sri Lanka’s diplomatic maturity, skill, finesse and grace in handling matters rationally on the international stage. After all, Sri Lanka’s position in the world, its global recognition as a trusted partner and sovereign nation is an issue of critical importance to us all. And what could be more important today, ten years after the end of a brutal fratricidal conflict? What could be a better opportunity to showcase our democracy especially after a tilt towards autocracy was defeated by the people, by Parliament and by the Judiciary? Indeed, the 40th session was an opportunity to tell the world of our difficult yet committed journey towards strengthening democracy, reconciliation, sustainable peace and achieving equitable economic development and prosperity for all. What I had hoped to see therefore was a serious, compassionate, and well-informed discussion on true reconciliation.

However, I note with deep concern that such an enlightened and rational approach is confined to our hopes and wishes and not what we have in reality. In Geneva, rather than demonstrating diplomatic skill, finesse, grace and maturity, we made a spectacle of ourselves.

Let’s call a spade a spade: much of what is presented today as debate on the recent Human Rights Council session amounts to little more than a display of egocentric one-upmanship, emotional manipulation and nationalistic propaganda calculated to stir frenzy, deceive the public and create fear to gather possible votes in the emerging electoral scenario.

What we see from many in our political spectrum – from those holding the highest positions to those in obscure positions – is a plethora of contradictory, improvised and exaggerated accounts. So much so that it is difficult to discern which is the most notorious of these utterances, or the most embarrassing, as each appears to want to outdo the other. Some managed to reduce their participation in the most important human rights forum in the world to self-important, gossipy, exaggerated tales about their supposed heroic roles in correcting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the former President of Chile Michelle Bachelet who has been a Minister of Defence in her country, and the chief of UN Women, the foremost global institution on women’s rights.

On behalf of all sane, rational, decent, sincere, compassionate, serious-minded and honest Sri Lankans who fervently wish to consolidate peace and reconciliation in our country, heal the wounds of our fellow citizens, and ensure non-recurrence of conflict, to lead us towards economic prosperity, I offer an apology to High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, a true friend of Sri Lanka’s people, a champion of the Global South, and herself a survivor of the horrors of torture. High Commissioner Bachelet, you did not deserve the misrepresentation of your statements.

But let’s focus on the biggest misrepresentation of them all: the version that Sri Lanka has somehow managed to produce an accusation against itself. A tale disseminated by members of the delegation that went to Geneva to participate in the Human Rights Council session. This is a tale of self-incrimination or incompetence because if these gentlemen talk today of their heroic exploits stopping the impetus of the world, how did they manage then to ensure that the resolution passed without a vote, by consensus, and with our co-sponsorship? And why did they, at substantial cost to our coffers, celebrate by hosting a reception after the adoption of the resolution?

But enough with the fake news. What exactly and truly transpired in the 40th Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva? What is resolution 40/1 “Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka”?

Quite simply, it is a resolution passed unanimously by the 47 members in the Council with co-sponsorship of 46 countries including Sri Lanka and our neighbour Maldives, ensuring the roll over or extension of two previous resolutions: resolution 30/1 of 2015 and resolution 34/1 of 2017 (itself a rollover/extension of resolution 30/1).

A similar rollover was co-sponsored in 2017 and signed by the then Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva, the present Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who was himself a member of the delegation this time. When he signed to co-sponsor resolutions in 2015 and in 2017, he was not made to bear the indignity of accusations being levelled at the present Ambassador of betraying our nation and its defence forces.

The decision to request for a technical/procedural rollover this year was taken after consulting both H.E. the President and the Hon. Prime Minister in February 2019 ahead of the organisational meeting of the 40th session of the Human Rights Council on 16 February 2019. Instructions pertaining to co-sponsorship were merely conveyed to Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador A.L.A. Azeez by Mr. Mano Tittawella, Secretary-General of the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM) which comes under the Prime Minister’s Office. The SCRM was formed by the Cabinet of Ministers in 2016 for the overall coordination of reconciliation activities including implementation of resolution 30/1. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Hon. Tilak Marapana was also fully aware of these instructions which were conveyed by him to Ambassador Azeez as well. Minister Marapana had also asked Ambassador Azeez to coordinate matters with respect to the resolution with Mr. Tittawella, and had kept the Secretary to his Ministry Ravinatha Aryasinha informed.

So, what does a rollover/procedural extension mean exactly? It means that instead of the world castigating Sri Lanka, as so often happened before January 2015, for human rights violations and impunity, the world reiterated its confidence that Sri Lanka is a nation which is firmly on the road towards reconciliation. The world reaffirmed that Sri Lankans are a responsible, mature, dignified people determined to work on tackling difficult issues to provide truth, justice, and reparation to the nation aimed at healing, upholding the rights of all and establishing the rule of law to ensure the non-recurrence of conflict, ushering in stability required for economic growth, development and prosperity for all in the long-term.

In the words contained in resolution 40/1,

“…it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population”. Yes! This is our responsibility and no one else in the world has appropriated that responsibility, as certain people have said recently!

A rollover of a resolution is not a sanction in any way. I challenge any member of the delegation that went to Geneva and participated in the rollover of the resolution without a vote, to show what sanction is contained in resolution 40/1, or in resolution 30/1 which is the original one adopted on 01 October 2015.

Resolution 30/1 which Sri Lanka co-sponsored in 2015, in pursuance of the mandate that President Sirisena received from the voters to implement the 100 Day Programme and take charge of Sri Lanka’s sovereign right to solve its own problems locally, is no more and no less than a historic agenda to ensure durable peace and reconciliation in our country.

Contrary to what is often being said, the content of resolution 30/1 was based on Sri Lanka’s own proposals for truth-seeking, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence presented to the Human Rights Council by me on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka on 14 September 2015. The content of this Statement was both discussed and approved by His Excellency the President as well as the Hon. Prime Minister at meetings that were held following the swearing-in of several ministers including me by the President after the Parliamentary Election held on 17 August 2015. It is as a result of this resolution (30/1) that prospects for international action initiated through resolution 25/1 of March 2014 and the OISL (OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka) that was adopted during President Rajapaksa’s regime was effectively halted. It is important to remind everyone that it is if we as a responsible and sovereign nation fails to act that we place our citizens in grave peril because the message we then send out to the world is that we are unable or unwilling to do our job. If we fail to deal with our issues ourselves, then others will step in, and international action as well as universal jurisdiction will apply.

I must recall here that following the adoption of resolution 30/1, the President convened at least two rounds of an All-Party Conference regarding implementation of the resolution for reconciliation while even at that time, expressing reservations regarding the involvement of foreign judges. In order to broaden the scope of implementation of the resolution, the President sought the views of all political parties that participated in the All-Party Conference. However, some of the political parties including the members of the so-called Joint Opposition that go around the country making unfounded accusations didn’t even bother to give written observations or suggestions at the time.

If you look at the content of Resolution 30/1 carefully, you will understand the objective of the reconciliation agenda which contains a series of measures covering reconciliation, rule of law, security and confidence-building. All these are measures that were derived directly from our promises to the Sri Lankan people at the election of January 2015: that we would overcome hate, that we would overcome arbitrariness, that we would overcome fear – all conditions that are necessary for long-term development of our nation. Nothing more and nothing less.

Many of these measures have been implemented, and in some others the progress has been partial but is ongoing. Every citizen that has not been living under a rock, or under the rock of prejudice, will recognize those measures that include: creating institutions to ensure the rights of victims as well as the future safety, security and wellbeing of all citizens; constitutional reform, so that we can all live, work, and prosper together in dignity; addressing shortcomings so that everyone can enjoy peace in their own lands and houses.

The measures of resolution 30/1, that was rolled over without the need of a vote, recently, include:

The establishment of an Office on Missing Persons, to undertake the humanitarian and compassionate task of determining the fate and whereabouts of the missing along the history of all our past conflicts and crises. The OMP, quite simply, restores the right of every Sri Lankan family, of any background, language or religion, to know what happened to their missing loved ones and to take measures to impress upon our nation’s soul, the non-recurrence of disappearances in future. As it has been noted, the missing in our country includes hundreds if not thousands of families of our soldiers as well as police personnel, missing in action. Who in their right mind with a beating heart could deny such a basic right to their grieving fellow citizens – mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children? Isn’t this the compassion that Gautama Buddha has spoken of?
The creation of an Office for Reparations, which has been approved in Parliament and which has passed constitutional muster, to ensure that all the persons affected by conflict have a fair opportunity to rebuild their lives, to receive adequate reparation, to be recognized in their dignity as human beings and citizens to receive appropriate satisfaction. The Office will be a permanent mechanism that will formulate policy which can help all citizens even in unfortunate events in future. What is threatening about helping those who suffer to rebuild their lives? Is it not a state’s sovereign responsibility to help all citizens in need rebuild and restore their lives and livelihoods?
The establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (for which a Concept Paper is before the Cabinet of Ministers) that will clarify the events of the conflict, including those most disputed and controversial, in order to lift the veil of secrecy and speculation, and to listen to all the victims and survivors, in a compassionate and dignified way. Everyone can tell their story. This includes the military. Who is afraid of letting our brothers and sisters from all walks of life, from all parts of our nation, speak, to enable truth-seeking, and thus facilitate measures for healing and non-recurrence of such grievous hurt in our land? Who is afraid of truth-seeking to such an extent as to oppose such a local exercise by calling it some conspiracy or international intervention? Is truth a foreign concept for Sri Lankans who are blessed by the teachings of Gautama Buddha, the Vedas, Prophet Mohammed and Jesus Christ?
The establishment, within our national legal system, of “a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law”, a mechanism that the Resolution explicitly calls “a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism” not an international one, in which there would be the participation of foreign jurists.

This, of course, is the measure that has motivated the most terror and indignation among the spoilers of reconciliation and healing. Therefore, let me review it carefully for the benefit of all those with a sincere desire and willingness to try to understand it.

-This proposal is not to establish a foreign mechanism in some foreign land outside Sri Lanka. Literally, it is a proposal to establish a Sri Lankan local mechanism. And the participation of foreign jurists is in no way a strange or unheard-of practice in Sri Lanka. After all, it was the government led by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa which established the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) in 2005, led by no less than the 17th Chief Justice of India, the illustrious justice Bhagwati. This is not the only instance either. Moreover, several Sri Lankan jurists have participated as judges and investigators in international courts. Some of our former judges and officials of the Attorney General’s Department have been appointed to judicial bodies in Fiji as well.

-No provision in our Constitution requires judges serving in our system to have Sri Lankan nationality. Of course, some could argue that the Constitution should clarify that point explicitly, but is this something we should get caught up arguing about and toss reconciliation out of the window just out of a newly discovered antipathy for the word “foreign”?

-The resolution says that the Sri Lankan justice system must investigate and adjudicate on allegations of the most serious human rights violations. Now who could oppose that? Even the gentlemen who went to Geneva this time in March 2019 say precisely that. Let’s assume that it is because of this fundamental agreement that they did nothing to prevent the adoption by consensus of the resolution! Should we not acknowledge the need to investigate allegations? Are we not bound by our own Constitution to provide for the equal protection of the law? Shouldn’t we do justice to all our citizens including our security forces personnel by investigating allegations so that those who may not be guilty of a crime do not have to carry the weight of an allegation with them to the grave? Should we let allegations remain without investigations and make our security forces personnel vulnerable to be subjected to universal jurisdiction? Do we not owe our institutions of the army, the navy, the air-force and the police the right to justice just as much as we owe all our citizens who have been wronged? This is called abiding by our own Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Human Rights Council is not a court of law. That is not the place to argue and debate over the number of dead or missing. All these including the information obtained by Lord Naseby are matters for Sri Lankan processes including the Sri Lankan justice system.

-The participation of foreign experts, in the capacity that we decide, within our national system is nothing new or controversial. We have already done it in the past. Instead of making this a Manichean discussion of “yes” and “no”, let’s have a practical discussion of how, and in what way do we ensure that justice tackles the most serious allegations, in an independent manner, and with the support of the best jurists of the world. As I have asked recently in my response to the Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa, why would we, a country of the Global South deprive ourselves of the expertise of our brothers and sisters in other countries of the Global South? Why not reach out to the Argentine experts who have identified the fate of the missing in their native country and around the world? Why ignore the contribution of our Tunisian friends who have examined the corruption and human rights violations of their past dictatorship? Why slam the door on South African lawyers who are even now uncovering the horrors of Apartheid and contributing to the construction of a diverse, proud Rainbow Nation, as they call their beautiful country? Why ignore the know-how of Colombian experts striking the delicate balance between peace and justice after a long conflict? Why shy away from even asking the High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet who has been a torture victim and later a Minister of Defence and President of her country to share her own experience in these matters with us?

-We have the expertise of numerous Sri Lankan experts who have participated in courts around the world. We have the recommendations of thousands of Sri Lankan citizens who appeared before the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission as well as the Consultation Task Force to give recommendations about justice. We have the willingness of the best legal minds around the world to share their opinion and expertise.

What else is in the resolution? Our commitment to pass new, modern laws to prevent the repetition of the past; a better legal framework to fight terrorism; legislation to prevent forced disappearances. This, as any legislation is not retroactive. Who could be against preventing future crime? Who could be against preventing disappearances in the future? Only those who may want a free hand to commit crime! Only those who would not hesitate in unleashing again the horror of the White Van phenomenon!
The resolution also encourages the return of land to its rightful civilian owners. This is quite a self-evident task: once the defence imperatives are addressed there is no necessity to use the land of civilian owners. We are a nation of laws, and every Sri Lankan, no matter their background and state in life has the right to own property and make a living, however modest. And, as the High Commissioner has noted, we are making significant progress in this regard. Who could be against ensuring that someone recovers a house, a plot of land, a fishing ground, so that everyone can enjoy the simple happiness of building a family, working hard, dreaming of a better future?
The resolution also encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to introduce effective security sector reforms as part of its transitional justice process, which will help to enhance the reputation and professionalism of the military. Who in his or her right mind would want to deny the military of the opportunity to enhance its reputation and professionalism? Can those who call themselves patriotic really deny the military the opportunity to serve the noble cause of Peacekeeping around the world?

When I read the resolution to try to explain what every task in the resolution is, I cannot help but wonder, who in their right mind could oppose such a common sense, compassionate, and reasonable measure? It should be a rhetorical question. It should be evident that rational persons couldn’t oppose any of these measures.

Regrettably, it is not self-evident.

Ten years after the end of the conflict in the North and the East, thirty years after the end of the second insurrection in the South, we seem to continue those fratricidal conflicts in our hearts, with the anger of the fighter, instead of the compassion of the peacemaker and peacebuilder. Instead of using the capacities of the state to rebuild, reform and reconcile, we try to stop rebuilding, reform, reconciliation and healing. Instead of recognizing the inherent human dignity of all persons, we ask first for their language, their religion, their identity!

And it is sad to note that those who do so, proclaim themselves good Buddhists. No philosophical system and no religious revelation, in particular the sublime teachings of Gautama Buddha, should be used to justify heartlessness and lies.

The sad reality is, then, that there are those who oppose any measure to achieve accountability and reconciliation, because they don’t want justice. They want victor’s justice. They don’t want the peace of the living, they want the peace of the cemeteries. They calculate that by appealing to our worst instincts: by mobilizing the base emotions of fear and hate, they will grasp power.

I trust that they are wrong. I trust that, at the end of the day, every Sri Lankan of goodwill is capable to feel in their heart the suffering of any living being and any other Sri Lankan. I am convinced that, even if we humans are imperfect and are capable of great evil, we are also capable of magnanimity, of goodness, of beauty, kindness, compassion, justice and dignity.

I trust that our citizens are capable to see beyond the lies, and I invite all professors in our universities, all community leaders, all leaders of our security forces, all religious leaders to discuss, to inquire, to inform themselves better than we politicians have informed them or the media has informed them through sound bites and news clips. I invite every responsible citizen to read the resolution that I have plainly explained here, and whose validity we have extended. Also read and observe and understand how actual UN and Human Rights Council processes work instead of being misled by fear mongers and liars.

In 2015, we ceased to be the pariah nation we were in the period immediately before that where we were fighting everyone and cornering ourselves. We took control of the accountability and reconciliation agenda, and we put the world as our witness. Nothing less, as I have said, and nothing more. We regained our place as a responsible sovereign nation alongside the rest of the world, because we had regained our heart, and our identity as a compassionate, proud, diverse nation, full of hope and inspiration to march forward, holding our heads up high, to be the best that we could be.

That, and not the lies and exaggerations, is what will win in the end: our love for our Mother Lanka, our freedom, our wonderful diversity, our faith, our capacity to reconcile, and our capacity to live and work together with unity of purpose – to make our country the developed country it deserves to be with no space for recurrence of conflict.