IMPERIALS AND STOOGES ONLY

A divided vote and even more divided responses

The Geneva Resolution:

March 29, 2014, 9:22 pm 

by Rajan Philips

The UNHCR vote on the Sri Lankan resolution divided along continental boundaries. Europe (Western and Eastern) and America (North and South) were the overwhelming supporters of the resolution. No country from these continents abstained on the vote; only three (Russia, Cuba and Venezuela) voted against, and the remaining 18 accounted for nearly 80% of the 23 ‘yes’ votes for the resolution. Asia and Africa voted in stark contrast: almost half the countries from each continent (six from each and 12 in all) abstained from voting, nine (six from Asia and three from Africa) voted against, and only five countries voted for – four from Africa and a solitary South Korea for all of Asia. It will not be too cynical to say that the Sinhalese and the Tamils, rather their self-accredited (if not discredited) representatives are not only at one another’s throats, but they have also managed to divide the world – East and West - between them. India suddenly saw new light and found the whole business "intrusive … inconsistent and impractical" and declared its non-alignment.

The responses to the vote have been equally divided and wholly contradictory, within Sri Lanka and outside. Let us look at the domestic reactions first. While the Sri Lankan President has rejected the resolution out of hand in keeping with the government’s official position that the resolution is ‘illegal’, the TNA leader, R. Sampanthan, has welcomed it as "a victory for all Sri Lanka’s people in their struggle for truth, justice and reconciliation … and … a meaningful opportunity for all communities in Sri Lanka to join an impartial, independent process in which we grapple with serious violations of human rights and crimes committed in our own respective names." In between, there are other voices – some calling rather mischievously, for example, for a new LLRC to start probing everything from beginning to end and targeting not just the government and the LTTE but "all parties" to include India; and others suggesting more responsibly that the Sri Lankan government must rapidly and sincerely carry out every requirement in the resolution except agreeing to investigation by the Office of the High Commissioner. The latter approach was also the exit door that the LLRC Commission suggested to the government to avoid the predicament that it has now gotten into.

There is enough opinion going around about the implications of this resolution and the consequences that would flow if the government were to choose to ignore it. I will not go into that. The government’s material position, apart from Peiris’s pettifogging about process and precedent, has been that it has already started doing everything that the UNHRC is asking it to do. But that position has no credibility not only at the UNHRC but also within the country. The only way to interpret the large number of abstainers from Asia and Africa (this is also true of India but there is a separate narrative about India) is that they were not comfortable with one government being targeted by others, especially others more powerful, but at the same time they were uncomfortable with Sri Lanka’s record on the matters that were raised before the Council. Otherwise, that is to say if the government’s record is believably positive, it is fair to conclude that all the abstainers would have voted no to the resolution. Fairer still, the prime movers of the resolution would have had no cause to generate a resolution in the first place.

The government’s record

So what is the government’s record? There is a depressing world of difference between the lifeless numbers that are projected in power point presentations and the real life experiences of people living in still appalling postwar conditions. No government leader has publicly or privately empathized with their plight. No one has visited them like Cameron did and that is why the people gave him a resounding reception. The government is yet to treat the postwar plight of the people seriously and work concertedly with the Northern Provincial Council and its Chief Minister to address their problems. Instead, it is picking a fight with the Chief Minister over the role and rights of the Provincial Chief Secretary. Politically, the government’s record is even worse. It has not only done nothing new towards achieving a political solution, but it has officially and otherwise indicated its intentions to roll back and repeal whatever that had been achieved previously. The reference to the Thirteenth Amendment in the new NHRC resolution is a response to the government’s record on devolution.

How did the government’s record get to be so dismal? Most of us have good answers to this question but I will attribute the government’s record to what Dayan Jayatilleke has described as the change that has come upon Sri Lanka in the five years after the war ended in 2009: "What is this change? The Sri Lankan state is undergoing an unethical conversion into a quasi-theocratic ethnocracy; our government into a clan based oligarchy and Ministry of External Affairs, its Missions overseas, and even its think tank, into front organizations of the Security apparatus (when they do not function as places of religious worship). Our diplomats have become fellow travelers and our Foreign Minister a puppet of the powerful Securocracy." My only comment on this would be that these changes were inherent in the manner and the method of the prosecution of the war that finished off the LTTE in 2009. On that there will be much disagreement. Be that as it may.

The point to be made, however, is that the state’s theocratic and ethnocratic deformation is another reason for the government’s heightened notoriety overseas and this is reflected in the clauses of the resolution dealing with attacks on places of worship and the army attack in Weliweriya. The question now is if the government is capable of changing its ways whether on its own volition, or, in order to (directly or indirectly) comply with every stipulation of the resolution other than the one relating to OHCHR investigation in the hope that the dynamic of compliance with everything else will wither away the insistence on independent investigation. It should not be unreasonable to assume that the Rajapaksa government is capable of positive transformation especially after it was assumed during the peace process that the LTTE was capable of positive transformation. But the disturbing similarity is that the government is turning out to be more and more like the LTTE and in more ways than one. In other words, regardless of being capable, there is no will to effect transformation. Put still another way, the patrons of theocracy and ethnocracy within the regime – the "clan based oligarchy" and the ‘securocrats, will not countenance any positive transformation or change.

The situation would have been different if there was a strong opposition; but, again, with a strong opposition there would not have been a "clan based oligarchy." But the power and entrenchment of this clan oligarchy should not be underestimated. Suffice it to say that the old Uncle-Nephew-Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Family Party (SLFP) were harmless sheep in comparison to today’s all powerful and sinister oligarchy. In any event, the UNP today is all but dead politically as a challenge to the Rajapaksa government, and the SLFP is seamlessly subordinated to the Rajapaksa oligarchy. So what prospect is there for change or transformation from within? Could the UNHRC and its resolutions from outside, be catalysts for a positive change or transformation? Or will they be counter-productive? I am not talking about regime change here, but the potential for the regime to change its direction and priorities.

UNHRC: help or hindrance?

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, issued a statement welcoming the vote and affirming that "the United States stands with all the people of Sri Lanka … committed to helping them realize a future in which all Sri Lankans can share in their country’s success." The Secretary seems blissfully unaware that not all Sri Lankans take equally kindly to the US. And in regard to the Geneva resolution, a majority of the Sinhalese and hence a majority of the Sri Lankans are not taking kindly at all to the US and the West. For them, the US and the West are biased against the Sinhalese.

On the other hand, one of the Tamil criticisms of the resolution, advanced by the Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF), is that the language of the resolution ‘de-Tamilizes’ the Sri Lankan problem – formulating it as a general human rights problem and failing to acknowledge the historical and structural domination of the Tamils by the Sri Lankan (overwhelmingly Sinhala) state. If the average, not just extremist, Sinhalese point of view is that the West is set against them, the extremist Tamil point of view is that the West is not sufficiently with them.

The truth of the matter is that the West, or no one else in the world today, is not going to be sufficiently with the Tamils to divide Sri Lanka. Indeed, the Sri Lankan government is puzzled according to an anonymous spokesman about the American persistence at the UNHRC given that the "US provided vital assistance by way of critically important intelligence which led to the sinking of four LTTE vessels on the high seas in late 2007, thereby helping Sri Lanka to bring the war to a successful conclusion in May 2009." It is not the US or the UN that have changed after 2009, but the Sri Lankan government - in failing to fulfill its commitment, formal and informal, to address the needs of the war victims as a priority and find a political solution to the problems that led to the war. This is what former US Embassy official Donald Camp has said and it is this change for the worse on the part of the Sri Lankan government that Dayan Jayatilleke has described and I have quoted earlier.

There has been a great deal of speculation about the reasons and motivations for the West, the US and the UK in particular, to be so concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka and to be so persistent at the UNHRC. The fundamental factor is the situation in Sri Lanka itself and the depressing usurpation of the state by a clan-oligarchy predicated on a self-sustaining ethno-theocratic-security agenda. It is this reality that fuels and legitimizes the Tamil diaspora. The major change in the international climate, that was not there say in 1983, is the emphasis on human rights. This emphasis has been growing over the last two decades culminating in the still teething UN norm: R2P. The emphasis on human rights in the Obama administration has been singularly remarkable – starting with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and continuing under the so called "Action Women": Susan Rice (National Security Adviser) and Samantha Power (UN Ambassador).

All of this does not answer the question whether the UNHRC resolution will help or hinder positive progress in Sri Lanka. But this is a ‘practical question’ and much of the answer will depend on what happens on the ground, how President Rajapaksa will respond, how he will work with the TNA, and whether he will facilitate co-operation and concerted action between the central government and the NPC. The President could exorcise the clan cabal and the ethno-theocratic forces, but he may not. And if he doesn’t, it is fair to ask the question as to how long must the Sinhalese people endure the ignominy of international oversight to sustain a regime that insists on getting worse rather than changing for the better. Two weeks ago when I wrote on ‘Jennings and Geneva’, I was trying to use the remarkable Jennings nostalgia that is still sweeping Colombo’s older intelligentsia, to drive home a point that should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the development of constitutional politics in Sri Lanka: If a communal compact was achievable and the "rest of the constitution was easy" in 1948, how did Sri Lanka end up in Geneva in 2012? Is President Rajapaksa capable of leading the undoing of the intervening history? Seen in this perspective, the UNHRC resolution could become more irrelevant than intrusive. Not otherwise.

LTTE-LTTE brutality THEY ARE OK.US,UK NO PROBLEM

LTTE brutality must be considered -Australian Foreign Minister

Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop issuing a statement on the US resolution against Sri Lanka which was passed at the United Nations Human Rights Council states that the Australian Government considers the engagement with Sri Lanka to be the most effective way to encourage progress on human rights issues and it will increase its effort to work constructively with the Sri Lankan Government, Tamil National Alliance and other stakeholders to identify ways to promote economic, social and cultural reconciliation.

“Genuine advance in accountability and reconciliation will only be possible with the cooperation of the Sri Lankan Government”, the statement added.

The Australian Government for the first time did not support the US resolution against Sri Lanka marking a huge achievement on the diplomatic front.

Issuing this statement after the UNHRC adopted the resolution with 23 votes for and 12 votes against, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister states that she does not think the resolution adequately recognises the significant progress taken by the Sri Lankan Government to promote economic growth and its investment in infrastructure in areas formerly dominated by the LTTE in the North and North East of the country.

“We should recognise the brutality of the LTTE - a proscribed terrorist organisation during the 30- year war on terrorism from which the country is struggling to emerge”, Julie Bishop said in her statement.

It stated “I note the Human Rights Council passed a resolution on Sri Lanka today.

I note that Australia is not a member of the Human Rights Council and does not vote.

Nevertheless I am not convinced that the resolution’s call for separate, internationally -led investigation, without the cooperation of the Sri Lankan Government is the best way forward at this time.”

“In addition I do not think the resolution adequately recognises the significant progress taken by the Sri Lankan Government to promote economic growth and its investment in infrastructure in areas formerly dominated by the LTTE in the North and North East of the country. We should recognise the brutality of the LTTE a proscribed terrorist organisation during the 30 -- year civil was from which the country is struggling to emerge”.“Australia will increase its effort to work constructively with the Sri Lankan Government, Tamil National Alliance and other stakeholders to identify ways to promote economic, social and cultural reconciliation.

I urge the Sri Lankan Government to implement the recommendations of its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and to engage with domestic and international stakeholders to advance an effective and transparent reconciliation agenda”, the statement added.

THANK GOD THERE ARE SOME WHITE GENTLEMEN

Australia opposes UN resolution to conduct war crimes in Sri Lanka

[March 28 2014]

Australia has voiced its opposition to an international investigation into alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka saying it is not convinced that the UN backed inquiry is "the best way forward".

The United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution on Thursday to launch an independent investigation into alleged atrocities in Sri Lanka, despite fierce opposition and allegations of bias from Sri Lankan officials.

Australia is not one of the 47 voting members of the council but could have co-sponsored the resolution if it backed the inquiry.

Twenty-three countries voted for the bill and 12 against and there were 12 abstentions.

Australia did not co-sponsor the bill or make any comments from the floor.

The Australian governments policy is in stark contrast to Britains reaction, with Prime Minister David Cameron welcoming the resolution as a victory for the people of Sri Lanka.

Labor and the Greens had also voiced their support in the lead-up to Thursdays vote, and Australian human rights advocacy groups had called on the government to do the same arguing the human rights situation in Sri Lanka continues to deteriorate.

In a statement on Friday, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the resolution had not adequately recognised the Sri Lankan governments "significant progress" in promoting economic growth in areas of Sri Lanka formerly dominated by the LTTE (Tamil Tigers).

Ms Bishop said the government, which last year gave the Sri Lankan navy two retired patrol boats to intercept asylum seekers bound for Australia, would rather work constructively with the Sri-Lankan government.

I am not convinced that the resolutions call for a separate, internationally-led investigation, without the co-operation of the Sri Lankan Government, is the best way forward at this time, Ms Bishop said.

In addition, I do not think the resolution adequately recognised the significant progress taken by the Sri Lankan government to promote economic growth and its investment in infrastructure in areas formerly dominated by the LTTE in the north and north-east of the country."

We should recognise the brutality of the LTTE, a prescribed terrorist organisation, during the 30-year civil war from which the country is struggling to emerge.

Australia will increase its efforts to work constructively with the Sri Lankan Government, the Tamil National Alliance and other stakeholders to identify ways to promote economic, social and cultural reconciliation.

In contrast, Mr Cameron said the passage of the resolution was triggered by the failure of the Sri Lankan government to stand by its promise to credibly and independently investigate alleged violations on both sides during the war.

In a report in March, the Human Rights Law Centre said Australia had formed a dangerously close relationship with Sri-Lankas military to gain its co-operation in implementing asylum seeker policies.

The Sri Lankan military is implicated in allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the report said.

Torture and mistreatment including the rape of men and women, is reportedly widespread in police custody.

In a letter to Minister Bishop, six eminent citizens including Chancellor of Southern Cross University, John Dowd, former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans, and former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser urged the government to support the investigation.

A culture of impunity encourages commonplace torture, enforced disappearances and sexual violence, the letter said. *

The Sydney Morning Herald

HOW CAN THERE BE NO MILITARY IN THE NORTH

Signs of LTTE regrouping in North and East

By Kurulu Kariyakarawana

While the Government and its diplomatic wing is effectively handling the recently passed UN resolution against the country, security intelligence units have been ordered to be on high alert against a potential threat of the LTTE regrouping in the North and the East following a series of events that have taken place during the last few weeks.

The security forces cleaned the least potential terrorist element from the soils of the North and East almost five years ago, making it a safe place for civilians are once again faced with a grave responsibility of maintaining that security with certain incidents reported showing signs of regrouping of the almost eliminated terror outfit.

This came to light with Police Headquarters publicising descriptions and photographs of three absconding high profile LTTE members last week with a reward of one million rupees for successful information relating to their arrest. They were identified as Gopi, Appan and Thevian.

Kajeepan Ponniah Selvanayagam alias Kasian alias Gopi is a 31-year-old six foot cadre with a dark complexion and a scar on his upper lip. According to police Gopi is known to be one of the remaining aides of the LTTE intelligence wing chief Shanmugalingam Sivashankar alias Pottu Amman. The police decided to publicise Gopi's details, who was already in the most wanted list, with a price on his head when he was confronted by a group of Police Terrorist Intelligence Division (TID) officials went to search a house in Dharmapuram in Kilinochchi District a few weeks ago.

Amidst credible information collected from ground level that a series of events taking place throughout the past months showing signs of regrouping was confirmed, with the arrest of two individuals pasting anti-government posters in Pallai in the Jaffna District several weeks ago. The duo who were reportedly from Silawathura area were pasting posters condemning the government asking for a Geneva intervention in the alleged human rights violations in the country. Having interrogated them the police learnt that they were instructed to carry out the job by a man called Gopi. A remaining LTTE operative who is secretly engaged in regrouping and reorganising atrocities. By then the intelligence agencies have recovered more information about this individual who is reported to have buried a cache of ammunitions in an unknown location in the remote North.

Shanmugalingam Sivashankar alias Pottu Amman

They also learnt that Gopi was assisted by another cadre identified as Appan. Navaratnam Navaneedan alias Appan is a 36-year-old LTTE cadre with a height of 5’ 2” and a brown complexion. Credible information revealed that Gopi and Appan were reportedly leading the regrouping program of the terrorist outfit in the North.

The TID having received information of a house suspected to be of sheltering Appan in Dharmapuram went on a search mission a few weeks ago. When the sleuths went inside the house to search an armed man hiding under a bed had fired several rounds at the approaching officials and fled the scene. Sub Inspector Ratnakumara who was among the search party received injuries after being shot in the leg. The suspect fled in the melee was identified as Gopi, whom the TID was looking for. Although there was insufficient information leading to prove the presence of Appan at the time of the confrontation, the police took the woman who was in charge of the house into custody along with her daughter.

The arrested woman has been identified as Balendran Jeyakumari who was reportedly having a close relationship with Appan. Although she was not married to Appan, she had been facilitating accommodation to him. When the police questioned Jeyakumari they learnt that Appan was visiting her house intermittently. They also found records of a number of overseas calls on her mobile phone in the recent past, which the police suspect them to be of calls between the members of the LTTE international diaspora who have a vested interest in sending funds through local money transferring facilities.

Arrest and detention of Balendran Jeyakumari and her daughter caused an uproar in the international arena after it was reported to the UN sessions in Geneva by TNA Northern Provincial Councillor Ananthi Sasitharan.

TNA Northern Provincial Councillor Ananthi Sasitharan

The Provincial Councillor complained that the Government is violating human rights by arresting an under-aged child. Sri Lanka issuing a statement in response to the accusations levelled by certain member countries stated that “interested parties were attempting to stigmatise the action of the authorities as an infringement when they were only carrying out their duties for the purpose of national security”.

Although Jeyakumari is reportedly being detained at the Boossa Detention Centre under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, her daughter has been transferred to a childcare and probation home as no legal guardian came forward as her custodian.

Also the arrest and detention of human rights activists Father Praveen and Ruki Fernando couple of weeks ago attracted much attention from the international arena again complaining the Sri Lankan government is violating the rights of its people. Intelligence agencies had to arrest the activists who were visiting the houses of Jeyakumari and Gopi in Dharmapuram and Kilinochchi as it provided sufficient need for an investigation to be launched into the nature of their involvement with the suspects wanted by the police.

The duo were however released following the due judicial process. The police charge that the activists were sent on a mission to study and report the situation following the Dharmapuram incident by the interested parties in Switzerland.

According to intelligence agencies the first signs of resurrection of the terror outfit was observed in 2012 where a Tamil national was killed in Kuchchaweli in Trincomalee by another Tamil national who is reported to have arrived from South India. The victim who is reportedly an EPDP supporter was killed by the visitor as he was becoming a hindrance to certain regrouping operations being carried out in the area. This came to light when the police arrested the assailant and interrogated him. Also in 2013 several attempts by groups of Tamil male and female youths to engage in secret combat training sessions in Jaffna and in South India showed signs that the terror outfit was re-emerging from the ashes. And also the arrests of two women Kulasinham Puwaneshwarie and Rasa Malam, mother of Gopi in two separate instances have lead to the revelation of much information related to the suspects wanted by police.

Apart from Gopi and Appan the TID is also looking for another crucial operative by the name of Thevian. According to available information Thevian is a former Air Tiger and a senior member of the LTTE air wing.

The police believe that there is a high probability that the suspect along with the other two suspects are roaming in the North Eastern areas as well as in Colombo and suburbs. The TID has issued two hot lines 0112 451636 and 0112 321838 to anybody willing to pass any information about the existence of any of these three suspects.

And the agencies have once again intensified their espionage operations in the North and the East in preparedness of a potential regrouping of the terrorist organisation that disturbed the country's law and order for over three decades.

WHY ARE THEY BLIND TO OTHERS SIDELKILLINGS

UN resolution ignores LTTE atrocities - Minister Susil Premajayantha

By Uditha Kumarasinghe

UPFA General Secretary and Environment and Renewable Energy Minister Susil Premajayantha said that he didn't see any logic in the UNHRC decision to investigate Sri Lanka's alleged human rights violations from 2002 to 2009 ignoring the atrocities and other grave human rights violations committed by the LTTE prior to 2002. The UNHRC's decision is to pin point Government violations and pay little heed to LTTE atrocities.

The Minister in an interview with the Sunday Observer said that the Government's position is if the UNHRC wants to investigate alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka, they should investigate such violations from 1983 so that they could also report on mass human rights violations committed by the LTTE including the massacre of 33 Bhikkhus in Aranthalawa, the massacre of Buddhist devotees at the sacred Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi and the bombing of the Sri Dalada Maligawa, Kandy.

The Minister said these massacres were committed prior to 2002 and the UNHRC wants to exclude them by ignoring what the LTTE did. This shows that the UNHRC doesn't maintain a credible stance on the issue.

It is not only the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay but also countries which tabled and supported the resolution at the UNHRC are not aware of the ground situation in Sri Lanka. They are under pressure from Western powers. Although the imperialist countries invaded small countries militarily in the past, today they are using the UNHRC as a tool to interfere with their internal affairs.

Q: The UNHRC circus has now taken a different twist when human right violations will be investigated from 2002 to 2009 and not from the beginning of the LTTE hostilities as desired by the Sri Lankan Government. How do you observe this type of vagaries in such international issues?

A: It clearly shows the intention of the authors of this resolution. I don't see any argument or logic to expand the period from 2002 to 2009 as the LTTE has committed so many grave human rights violations prior to 2002. Their sole intention is to give little weight to LTTE atrocities and pin point more to the Sri Lanka Government.

Our position is if the UNHRC wants to investigate alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka, they should investigate such violations from 1983. Then they would find so many grave human rights violations committed by the LTTE including the massacre of 33 Bhikkhus at Aranthalawa, the massacre of Buddhist devotees at the sacred Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi and the bombing of the Sri Dalada Maligawa, Kandy.

All these incidents took place prior to 2002. I think they just want to exclude those brutal LTTE atrocities. This deviation also shows that the UNHRC doesn't maintain a sustainable position on the issue.

Q: The Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims lived together in peace for centuries, despite minor incidents of religious disharmony. Does this warrant the so-called internationalising of religious reconciliation in Sri Lanka when hundreds of religious minorities have been butchered in some Asian countries?

A: Before 2009 and for the past so many years, international forces interfered with Sri Lanka's internal affairs. Apart from that some of our leaders during their regime invited some foreign countries and organisations to interfere with our internal matters. Actually the people should understand this situation. I don't want to mention names of those former leaders. But if you go back to history, there is so much of evidence to show that during their leadership how they invited some foreign countries and organisations to interfere with our internal matters. After President Mahinda Rajapaksa came to power in 2005, none of those foreign countries or organisations were permitted to interfere with our internal affairs.

I think that is why most of the Western powers dislike the manner in which President Mahinda Rajapaksa is handling the country's internal affairs. Because they like to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries rather than solving the domestic issues in their own countries.

They have so many issues in their own countries to be sorted out. But they are not bothered and interfere with the internal affairs of other countries. These external forces, foreign countries and organisations want to interfere with our internal affairs and that is why they have taken this step.

Q: If an independent vote is taken at the UNHRC in the absence of the UK and USA's gerrymandering, a victory for Sri Lanka is certain. How do you analyse this scenario?

A: The Commonwealth countries means countries which gained independence from British rule. These Commonwealth countries are also in the UNHRC. They are influenced by the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the United States of America has an in many countries such as the Far East, South Asia, Africa, the EU as well as most of the Western countries. Because some of these countries cannot survive without the financial, economic and military support of the US. Those countries have realised the true situation in Sri Lanka and have conveyed this to us when we met them personally. Unfortunately, those countries can't vote for Sri Lanka due to the pressure exerted on them by the UK and USA. Surely if not for the USA and the UK, definitely most of the countries would support Sri Lanka to defeat the resolution.

Q: How do you evaluate Australia's commendable stand on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC without being swayed by the big powers?

A: Australia is an independent country. Though it is a Commonwealth country, it does not depend on Western powers militarily, economically or financially. That is why countries like China and Australia expressed their straight forward views.

Q: What are the consequences of the Resolution specially on trade?

A: This is just another resolution. Likewise they have passed so many resolutions against other countries. But nothing has happened. They can't commence any investigation without our consent. If any investigation is done by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay obviously it is a biased investigation. I don't know whether we can go to the international courts on the basis of that biased investigation. Because the rule of law is not in existence.

Is there an international court to take action against Navi Pillay, we would explore the possibility of doing so. Because there is evidence that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is biased. Can such a biased person commence an investigation against a country? Though the resolution is adopted, we have to look into the legality of holding an international investigation against Sri Lanka.

Q: When one sees the massive lobbying in Geneva by LTTE supporters, one is inclined to think that the UNHRC has lost its independence being swayed by intense pressure of the big countries. Your comments?

A: Yes of course. The LTTE diaspora started recently and they have been operating for so many years. When the LTTE was active, they began fund raising and lobbying some politicians, political parties, party leaders and some organisations. Still they have funds and they utilise those funds to carry out their campaign.

They still collect funds because they have an international political wing in operation. All these organisations started after the 1983 incidents. Who is responsible for the 1983 incidents ? At that time the UNP Government was in power and Ranil Wickremesinghe was one of the Cabinet Minister of that Government. There are so many UNP Parliamentarians who were in that UNP Government.

Then President J.R. Jayewardene didn't take any meaningful step to prevent those incidents. As a result, thousands of Tamils left the country and settled in Western countries which are pressurizing us today at the UNHRC. Their second generation are pressurizing those Governments and they hire PR companies and there are lobbying groups in those countries.

This situation was created by the UNP Government in 1983. Even during the regime of Ranil Wickremesinghe, he internationalised our internal problems by calling monitors to supervise. He also signed an agreement with the LTTE Leader Prabhakaran with the blessings of the so-called Western countries which tabled the resolution against us at the UNHRC. Those are the countries which supported Ranil Wickremesinghe when he was the Prime Minister. Wickremesinghe after signing that agreement with Prabhakaran in two particular places said that we have an international safety network. Where was that network? After a few days, the LTTE started killing intelligence officials and destroyed our intelligence system.

They also started many other killings. Then only we realised though Ranil Wickremesinghe signed the agreement under pressure from Western powers, they didn't support us at that time. However, President Mahinda Rajapaksa successfully ended the war against terrorism without the support of any of these Western countries.

They want to take revenge from the President and the people of Sri Lanka because they were not involved in this process.

Q: As far as Sri Lanka's alleged human rights violations are concerned, don't you think it is illogical for a world body to act on Navi Pillay's report alone without due regard to the ground situation in the country?

A: It is not only Navi Pillay, even the countries which tabled and supported the resolution at the UNHRC are not aware of the ground situation in Sri Lanka. Even though they know about Sri Lanka's true situation, they are under pressure from Western powers. Even during history, imperialist countries invaded small countries militarily. Now they use the UNHRC as a tool to interfere with the internal affairs of smaller countries.

Q: The TNA's action since being elected expose its secessionist agenda despite the claim for devolution of power within a united Sri Lanka. Your comments?

A: Definitely. We find that most of the TNA's representatives in the Provincial Councils and Parliament are ex-LTTE cadres. Their mindset has not changed. We have to live with these elements. That is nature. That is why we need a strong leadership even in the future.

Q: There are allegations from the main Opposition UNP that the rule of law and good governance has weakened, giving room to arbitrary action. Is there any truth in this allegation?

A: They should go before a mirror and ask that question. What happened in Sri Lanka during the 1988-1989 terror period? How many youths disappeared and were burnt on the roads during this period? More than 40,000 youth were brutally killed. I think the total number of killings and disappearances during the 1988-1989 terror period exceeds the total number of deaths during the last 30 years of war against terrorism. That is why I call upon the UNP to go before a mirror and ask the same question from themselves. They have to recollect what happened during the terror period from 1988 to 1990 in Sri Lanka.

Q: The billions worth of development projects launched by the UPFA Government is enough to ensure a landslide victory at the Provincial Council elections. What will be the voter reaction considering relentless Opposition attack on the Government?

A: Right throughout the election campaign, we didn't see an organised campaign by any member of the Opposition party. They had a few adhoc gatherings. The UNP could not even have a single main rally in a public ground. They had all their meetings and discussions in small halls. It shows that the people are not with the Opposition. The UPFA had about 16 major rallies under the patronage of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The people witnessed the rousing welcome and overwhelming public support gained by the Government in the Western and Southern provinces. I think we don't have any competition or challenge whatsoever from the Opposition.

SELF ACQUIRED MANDATES

Mandates of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

March 31, 2014, 8:56 pm 

By Neville Ladduwahetty

Paragraph 10 and 10 (b) of the US-proposed UN Resolution A/HRC /25/L.I/Rev.1 that was passed in Geneva on March 27, 2014, "requests the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR):

(b) To undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and to establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetuated with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability, with assistance from relevant experts and special procedure mandate holders"

During a meeting on Monday between the OHCHR with NGOs, in the sidelines of the 25th session of the Council, Ms. Pillay stressed that the OHCHR "has the power to establish an international mechanism" to investigate crimes, as it falls under the human rights protection mandate of her office.  Ms. Pillay is reported to have stated: "Now apart from calling for an international investigation, we have interpreted our mandate to say that the High Commissioner herself has power to investigate a situation". Furthermore, that "This did come out when we needed legal advice to see whether the Secretary General can himself set up a panel on Sri Lanka when as you know not a single inter-governmental forum had addressed the issue of the serious crimes committed. Obviously the fact that the Secretary General went again means that we are very clear that the UN does have these powers, because it falls under the overall mandate of protecting human rights." (Tamil Guardian, March 17, 2014).

By Ms. Pillay’s own admission, the High Commissioner has "interpreted" the mandate of the OHCHR as having the right to investigate alleged violations of human rights. However, her "interpretation" is not good enough for sovereign member states to comply. Member states need more than "interpretations". Member states need unequivocal statements that have legitimacy of the sort of a General Assembly resolution. Until then, Sri Lanka has no alternative but to appeal to the General Assembly that conducting inquiries into the internal affairs of sovereign states cannot be permitted based on "interpretations" by temporarily-appointed individuals with no accountability.

Seeking redress by appealing to the UN Secretary General (UNSG) as to the legitimacy of OHCHR’s "interpretation" would not serve any meaningful purpose judging from the conduct of the Panel of Experts (PoE) appointed by him in violation of his commitment to the President of Sri Lanka when a joint statement was signed by them in May 2009. After this latter statement, the UNSG stated on March 2010 that: "The panel I am establishing will advise me on the standards, benchmarks and parameters, based on international experience that must guide any accountability process such as the one in the joint statement. Now this panel will report to me directly and not to another body".

Instead of establishing the "standards, benchmarks and parameters" he had called for, the UNSG covertly sanctioned the PoE to conduct a clandestine investigation and leak its findings to the public. The conduct of the Office of the UNSG and the image of the UN itself has been tainted by this entire episode. Under the circumstances, no member state can hope to rely on the impartiality and objectivity of the UN or any of its organs such the OHCHR. The ONLY hope for member states is to rely on their own strength in the General Assembly.

MANDATE OF RESOLUTIONS 48/141 and 60/251

Space does not permit the publication of the full text of Resolution 48/141 that establishes the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the full text of Resolution 60/251 which establishes the mandate of the Human Rights Council. However, a careful review of its provisions reveals that nowhere in these provisions is there a mandate given for "investigation". The reason for exclusion of such a provision makes sense because the OHCHR or any other body cannot carry out multiple functions that conflict with each other. For instance, the OHCHR is expected to promote and encourage respect for human rights and monitor and report the human rights situation in member states while maintaining "principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, in the spirit of constructive international dialogue and cooperation," as stated in the preamble of Resolution 48/141. If, in addition the OHCHR is also mandated to conduct "investigations", the spirit of engagement to promote human rights would be clearly compromised. An agency whose primary function is to promote and encourage human rights, needs to develop a relationship of understanding and cooperation with the member states; a relationship that would be severely compromised if it were to engage in "investigations" as well. The stated primary function of promoting and encouraging human rights would be compromised, as has been demonstrated already in Sri Lanka’s relationship with the UNSG and OHCHR.

Furthermore, considering the fact that paragraph 3 (a) of 48/141 requires the OHCHR to "And paragraph 3 states: "

Function within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international instruments of human rights and international law, including the obligations, within this framework, to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and domestic jurisdiction of States…", it is realistically not possible for external agencies such as the OHCHR to also investigate violations within countries without impacting on the domestic jurisdiction of member states. Investigating human rights violations by an external agency such as the OHCHR as called for in the resolution would be no different to investigations relating to internal law and order being conducted by external agencies without causing disrespect to the domestic jurisdiction of member states; an obvious impossibility.

Similar standards of impartiality and objectivity are required by the UN Human Rights Council. For instance, paragraph 4 of Resolution 60/251 states: "Decides further that the work of the Council shall be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights …". These words ring hollow considering the fact that the recently passed resolution expands the scope of the mandate of the OHCHR to authorize it to "investigate" human rights situations in Sri Lanka with the assistance of "experts and special procedure mandate holders" who, being hand- picked individuals with dubious loyalties, would not have the impartiality and the objectivity to meet guidelines set for the OHCHR. Instead, their loyalty and accountability would be to the OHCHR. Consequently, one could be certain that outcomes would be predetermined. If the fates of sovereign states and their citizens are permitted to be determined by such individuals it would be the biggest human rights violation of all, as demonstrated by the highly prejudiced report of the PoE on Sri Lanka.

These circumstances are coupled with the fact that the OHCHR does not have the needed resources to be independent and free of pressures and the influence of the sources that finance these "investigations". Thus, outcomes of "investigations" would inevitably not have the imprint of impartiality and objectivity. In a background where investigations are compromised due to lack of independence, as well as these investigations being carried out by individuals who are biased or have no credibility, the vulnerability of states are at stake. The precedent set would enable the OHCHR to selectively pick amenable member states to report on human rights situations in countries and recommend that "investigations" be conducted to suit the geopolitical strategies of Powers that have a firm grip on the OHCHR and its workings.

Despite protests by some member states that the resolution violates the mandate granted to the OHCHR and the HR Council, other representatives of Governments have maintained that the OHCHR and the HR Council have the mandate to "investigate" HR violations. The very fact of a lack of consensus on this vital issue confirms that the fates of member states cannot be permitted to be left to "interpretations", but has to be based on mandates definitively granted by the General Assembly.

CONCLUSION

Resolutions 48/141 and 60/251 do NOT in any way definitively grant the OHCHR or the HR Council the mandate to "investigate" alleged HR violations in member states. Claiming such authority based on "interpretation" by the High Commissioner/UNHRC is unacceptable. What is acceptable is a General Assembly resolution granting such authority if such is its view. In the absence of such a definitive resolution, for the UNHRC to authorize the High Commissioner to "investigate" is in clear violation of the need for impartiality and objectivity mandated under the current General Assembly Resolution 60/261.

There is no mechanism for member states to appeal or seek a definitive interpretation as to whether current scope of the mandate as stated in Resolutions 48/141 and 60/261 authorizes "investigations". Appealing to the UNSG would be a futile exercise considering his unprofessional conduct in the appointment of the PoE who were supposed only to "set standards, benchmarks and parameters" to guide an investigation, but instead carried out a clandestine investigation and made its findings public. In this vacuum, the OHCHR has interpreted and arrogated to itself the right to "investigate" alleged violations in Sri Lanka. Under the provisions of the resolution the investigative process would be conducted by "experts and special procedure mandate holders". These individuals are accountable only to the OHCHR who engages them. To expect impartiality and objectivity from such individuals is a vain hope.

Since representatives of some governments claim that such investigative powers have been used previously, it is all the more necessary that member states band themselves together to prevent this continued abuse of power based on "interpretations". Not to act is to allow the institution of the UN to be hijacked by individuals whose conduct does not meet the guidelines set by the General Assembly. Since the UN General Assembly is similar to a Parliament of member states, violating its powers is an affront to its very existence; a fate that would be no different to the previous Commission for Human Rights that was abandoned due to its ineffectiveness through politicization.

Therefore, Sri Lanka should with the support of the member states that opposed the Resolution, and those that abstained, engage in a collective effort to initiate a resolution in the General Assembly to deny the OHCHR and the HR Council the mandate to "investigate" human rights situations in member states, because it violates the principle of intervention in matters relating to issues of domestic jurisdiction, clearly recognized and emphasized in the UN Charter. It is imperative that issues relating to domestic jurisdiction should not be left to "interpretations" by individuals and their handymen. If left unchallenged the banner of human rights would be used to dismantle states that stand in the way of fulfilling their "manifest destiny".

LIES AND MORE LIES -UK

Cameron’s ‘Bloody Sunday’ example misleading – GoSL

April 1, 2014, 9:46 pm 

by Shamindra Ferdinando

British Premier David Cameron was making an attempt to portray the UK’s response to the Bloody Sunday massacre in Northern Ireland as the perfect example of how accountability issues should be addressed, a senior Sri Lankan official told The Island yesterday.

The official was responding to a statement the Conservative leader made in Parliament on March 26 in response to an oral question asked by Ian Paisley (North Antrim).

MP Paisley: The charge levelled at President Rajapaksa that he has failed to address the issues of the past properly is frequently levelled, in slightly different circumstances about politicians in Northern Ireland. That being the case , why is the Prime Minister being inconsistent? He steadfastly opposes the internationalization of our internal affairs. Surely he should also opposes the internationalization of the internal affairs of a trading partner such as Sri Lanka and urge it to sort out its own problems.

Prime Minister Cameron: I would give two answers to that very incisive question.

First, here in the UK, including in Northern Ireland, we have taken major steps to disinter the past and to discuss it and deal with it. The Bloody Sunday inquiry is one such example.

That has not happened in Sri Lanka. Its lessons learnt exercise is not going into the detail that is needed about the appalling events that happened, particularly at the end of the war. Secondly, though we guard our independence and sovereignty jealously, we did call upon friendly nations, including the United States to help us with our peace processes. Frankly, in confronting one’s own past and one’s own problems, other countries can sometimes help. I think Sri Lanka should take the same approach.

Premier Cameron’s statement was meant to justify UK throwing its weight behind the US-led resolution on Sri Lanka taken up at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on March 27, the official said.

External Affairs Ministry official said that nothing could be as inappropriate as the Bloody Sunday inquiry as an example. The official said: "What Premier Cameron conveniently didn’t say was that he on behalf of the British government apologized for the Bloody massacre in January 2010 nearly four decades after the British paratroopers killed13 unarmed civilians, seven of them teenagers, in Londonderry. Another died some time later from injuries suffered on January 30, 1972.

The official pointed out that Premier Cameron apologized following the publication of an inquiry report at the end of a 12-year investigation. Responding to a query, the official pointed out that the British media had reported that those facing prosecution would be represented by lawyers hired by the Defence Ministry. The evidence gathered by Lord Saville who spearheaded the Bloody Sunday inquiry too, could not be used for any prosecution as soldiers, who spoke to the judge anonymously, were assured their evidence would not be made available to the police, the official said.

Commenting on UK demanding Sri Lanka to address accountability issues immediately or face the consequences, the official said that the British were yet to publicize their much talked about investigation report on the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The British set up an internal inquiry in July 2009 to probe invasion of a country on the false pretext of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), while demanding an international inquiry into Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism, the official said.

poking the back of others a way of life

UK says it led charge against Sri Lanka

- Hugo Swire

April 1, 2014, 9:47 pm 

By Sujeeva Nivunhella in London

British State Minister of Foreign and Commonwealth Office Hugo Swire said that the UK had taken a forward-leaning position and provided leadership to bring a UN resolution on Sri Lanka for an international investigation. Addressing the Westminster Hall debate last Tuesday (25/03/14) at the British parliament Swire said that such a resolution would help break new ground if the council was successful in establishing an international mechanism. 

"The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, my ministerial colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I have personally engaged with the majority of Human Rights Council countries. On 21 March, my right hon.

Friend the Prime Minister led a call for European Council conclusions that put the EU’s full support behind the resolution.

"We have been encouraged by the responses, but will continue to press hard for support right up until the vote takes place. We are taking nothing for granted. We have been working extremely closely with non-governmental organisations and other interested groups and listening to their views and aspirations," he said.

Speaking at the same debate Conservative MP for Ilford North Lee Scott said a comprehensive international investigation was needed as the  Sri Lankan Government was not dealing with the matters themselves. 

"I would like to see put forward as tough a resolution as is humanly possible. I have seen that the current draft resolution says that crimes up to 2009 would be investigated, but many crimes have been committed since then that must be looked into as well. The demilitarisation zone should be expanded to include the east of the country, where crimes have been perpetuated, as well as the north.

It is also important for there to be a free political stage—people should not be persecuted for trying to speak up and stand as opposition parties in Sri Lanka, as they are currently", Scott said.

"The Sri Lankan Government has never given any signal that they intend to carry out their duties as a Government representing all people in their country, so nothing should be taken off the table when considering what we must do to ensure that the resolution is adhered to and justice is done. Without question, before there can be even a chance of reconciliation, there must be justice.

I call for peace for all in Sri Lanka. The accusation has been levelled at me that I am speaking on behalf of only one people. I am talking on behalf of everyone—I do not want anyone in Sri Lanka to suffer, whatever their religion or background might be. It is not for me to say who is guilty or not; the whole point of a comprehensive international investigation is to find that out. Someone was responsible for the death of women and children, for the rape of women and for the persecution that has gone on, and they must be held to account", he further said.

Labour MP for Mitcham & Morden Siobhain McDonagh joining the debate said that the President Rajapaksa headed a regime that most observers believe committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. During the conflict, it dropped cluster bombs on the area it had designated a no-fire zone. Even now, nearly 150,000 Tamils remain unaccounted for.

"More than half the abductions mentioned in the report took place in the last year alone. Tamil places of worship are routinely targeted. A policy of displacement through militarisation led the UN special rapporteur in December to describe the living conditions of tens of thousands of Tamils as "very precarious". Human rights campaigners have been targeted, including Balendran Jeyakumari, who was arrested and assaulted earlier this month and whose defenders were also detained when they tried to investigate. Earlier this month, the leading Sri Lankan Catholic Bishop Rayappu Joseph was accused of treason. Sri Lanka is now the most dangerous place in the world to be a journalist, and there have been thousands of disappearances. According to Freedom from Torture, Sri Lanka is now the country from which it gets the most referrals. Human Rights Watch has also released a shocking report on the rape and sexual abuse of Tamil detainees", she said.