Muslim, Sinhala IDPs’ right to return to NP others say NO

Muslim, Sinhala IDPs’ right to return to NP should be recognised – President

March 12, 2014, 9:40 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

President Rajapaksa

President Mahinda Rajapaksa early this week declared that since the vast majority of internally displaced Tamil people in the Northern Province had been resettled, it was now the responsibility of the government to resettle the Sinhalese and the Muslims chased away by the LTTE.

President Rajapaksa emphasised that the right of all those evicted by terrorists at gunpoint more than 20 years ago to return should be recognised.

The President was addressing a propaganda rally at Ratmalana Railway grounds on Monday (March 10) in support of those contesting the Colombo district on the UPFA ticket.

In an obvious reference to the ongoing attempt to haul Sri Lanka before an international war crimes tribunal, President Rajapaksa said that the release of child soldiers had been conveniently forgotten. The government hadn’t received the appreciation it deserved for the swift release of child combatants, the President said, explaining the speedy rehabilitation and release of combatants.

The President said that society would provide a conducive environment to those returning to civilian life better than detention facilities.

President Rajapaksa said no one could undermine his administration as long as the people were with it.

Jaffna Security Forces Commander, Major General Udaya Perera recently briefed Agnes Asekenye-Oonyu, Head of the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) on the situation at open welfare centres in Jaffna and the ongoing resettlement project.

Maj. Gen. Perera told The Island that the LTTE had driven people of all three communities out of the Jaffna peninsula during the conflict. The Sinhalese were chased out in the 1980s, the Muslims in 1990 and the Tamils during Operation Riviresa, which regain Jaffna in late 1995. Although the peninsula was brought under government administration in 1996, those the LTTE had driven away had not been able to return, the Major General said.

Major General Perera assured the UN official Sri Lanka’s commitment to resettle the war displaced as soon as possible.

Defence Ministry sources told The Island that the return of about 30 Sinhala families to Navatkuly close to Jaffna had prompted the US Embassy to dispatch its political officer, Michael A. Ervin, to inquire into the circumstances under which they had arrived there. Sources said that the families residing at Navatkuly were among those forced to flee the peninsula at the onset of hostilities in the 1980s. According to the 1981 Census, there had been 19,334 Sinhalese in Northern Province, comprising the administrative districts of Jaffna, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi, Vavuniya and Mannar. The majority of them had lived in the Jaffna peninsula and owned property at the time hostilities erupted.

Ministry sources said that the natural growth of a particular community too, should be taken into consideration before resettlement of those driven out of the Northern Province got underway.

Now, US named and shamed for HR violations

Geneva: Now, US named and shamed for HR violations

... some abuses as old as America itself

March 14, 2014, 9:18 pm 

The US spearheading a resolution against Sri Lanka at the ongoing UNHRC session in Geneva drew heavy flak on Thursday for grave human rights abuses.

The US was accused of systematic human rights violations both on its soil and abroad.

The Guardian has revealed that the US was censured on March 13, at the beginning of a two-day examination of the US human rights record by the UN Human Rights Committee consisting of 18 members responsible for the investigation. The investigation has dealt with a long list of human rights abuses including detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, target killings as well as clandestine surveillance operations undertaken by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Expressing its serious concerns over the US rights record, the expert committee asserted that its concerns related to faultlines as old as America itself, such as guns and race, according to The Guardian.

The US has moved two successful resolutions against Sri Lanka in 2012 and 2013 at the UNHRC. The Guardian quoted the head of the US delegation, Mary McLeod, Principal Deputy Legal Advisor as having said: "While we are certainly not perfect, our network of federal, state and local institutions provide checks on government...Since the founding of our country, in every generation there have been Americans who sought to realise our constitution’s promise of equal opportunity and justice for all."

McLeod is quoted as having said that Obama is working to reduce the number of detainees in Guantánamo; drone strikes are conducted "in compliance with international law" and the NSA is under "substantial oversight" by other parts of government. The administration was taking measures to reduce disparities in racial sentencing and profiling, and the death penalty was steadily declining in the 32 states that still practiced it.

However, the US failed to respond to specific issues raised by the UN committee, particularly the failure on the part of Obama administration to prosecute any of the officials responsible for permitting waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques under the previous administration.

Walter Kälin, a Swiss international human rights lawyer, who sits on the committee, lambasted the US for refusing to recognise the convention’s mandate over its actions beyond its own borders. The move, Kalin pointed out was taken after 9/11 as a way of evading international scrutiny over Guantánamo and other "extra-territorial" measures of dubious standing in international law.

The Swiss national was quoted as having said: "This world is an unsafe place," Kälin said. "Will it not become even more dangerous if any state would be willing to claim that international law does not prevent them from committing human rights violations abroad?"

Kälin expressed shock at some of America’s more extreme domestic habits. Referring to the release this week in Louisiana of Glenn Ford, the 144th person on death row in the US to be exonerated since 1973, Kalin said: "One hundred and forty-four cases of people wrongfully convicted to death is a staggering number."

Pointing out the disproportional representation of African Americans on death rows, he added: "Discrimination is bad, but it is absolutely unacceptable when it leads to death."

On guns, Kälin pointed to another "staggering figure" – that there are 470,000 crimes committed with firearms each year, including about 11,000 homicides. "We appreciate the position taken by President Obama on these issues. Nevertheless, much more needs to be done to curb gun violence."

Among the other issues that came under the committee’s withering gaze, according to The Guardian report were:

· the proliferation of stand-your-ground gun laws

· enduring racial disparities in the justice system, including large numbers of black prisoners serving longer sentences than whites;

· mistreatment of mentally-ill and juvenile prisoners;

· segregation in schools;

· high levels of homelessness and criminalization of homeless people;

· racial profiling by police, including the mass surveillance of Muslim communities by the New York police department.

The head of the US delegation, Mary McLeod, a senior official in the State Department, insisted that the country was "continually striving to improve". She said: "While we are certainly not perfect, our network of federal, state and local institutions provide checks on government …

The experts raised questions about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of digital communications in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations. It also intervened in this week’s dispute between the CIA and US senators by calling for declassification and release of the 6,300-page report into the Bush administration’s use of torture techniques and rendition that lay behind the current CIA-Senate dispute.

The committee is charged with upholding the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a UN treaty that the US ratified in 1992. The current exercise, repeated every five years, is a purely voluntarily review, and the US will face no penalties should it choose to ignore the committee’s recommendations, which will appear in a final report in a few weeks’ time.

But, The Guardian says the US is clearly sensitive to suggestions that it fails to live up to the human rights obligations enshrined in the convention – as signalled by the large size of its delegation to Geneva this week. And as an act of public shaming, Thursday’s encounter was frequently uncomfortable for the US.

The US has come under sustained criticism for its global counter-terrorism tactics, including the use of unmanned drones to kill al-Qaida suspects, and its transfer of detainees to third countries that might practice torture, such as Algeria.

Geneva, India, and American Imperialism 2 it is INDIA that matter

Geneva, India, and American Imperialism 2

March 14, 2014, 8:16 pm 

By Izeth Hussain

It should be obvious that the Government has scored a tremendous victory in Geneva. Of course the final vote on the US draft Resolution is yet to come, but I don’t expect any serious reversals. The crucial facts are these: there will be no setting up of a mechanism for international investigations into war crimes and there will be no sanctions against Sri Lanka, both of which had been widely and confidently anticipated. The Tamil diaspora has rejected the draft Resolution, and the TNA has sent its emissaries to Delhi, which can be taken as meaning that the Tamil disappointment with developments in Geneva is comprehensive. So, the blitzkrieg that was to blow Sri Lanka to bits has turned out to be a damp squib.

How was what looks very much like a SL Government triumph achieved? Information about that is not in the public domain. My guess is that there were two factors behind the triumph. One is that India – which as I have argued in earlier articles can be expected to have decisive clout with the US in matters relating to Sri Lanka – got the US to dilute the draft Resolution so that there will be nothing smacking of the punitive against Sri Lanka for another year. The other is the power of the argument – which the Government has taken to emphasizing in recent weeks – that investigations into war crimes will make impossible the spirit of mutual accommodation that is required for progress towards a political solution and ethnic reonciliation, and therefore the investigations will have to be postponed until after the process of ethnic reconciliation takes hold. In this connection I must quote what Archbishop Desmond Tutu said about one of the reasons why the post-apartheid regime did not resort to anything like the Nuremburg trials: "It would also have been counterproductive to devote years to hearing about events that, by their nature, arouse very strong feelings. It would have rocked the boat massively and for too long". It is beyond my comprehension why the good Archbishop came to support the call for international investigations in the case of Sri Lanka.

Geneva imbroglio

However the triumph, if indeed it turns out to be a definitive triumph after the final vote on the US Resolution, is only of a provisional order. In effect Sri Lanka is being put on probation for a year, after which punitive action could follow if SLG fails to take certain measures. Furthermore the range of action required of Sri Lanka has been considerably widened. It now includes action against attacks on the religious minorities, which could possibly become a very big problem by the end of another year. No one can be quite sure what the situation might be by March 2015. We seem to be witnessing the emergence, in addition to the ethnic imbroglio, of yet another one, the Geneva imbroglio. In this situation we must try, just as in the case of the ethnic imbroglio, to get at the fundamentals of the Geneva imbroglio.

I stand by the analysis that I made in my article ‘The Ban Ki-moon Conspiracy’ in The Island of May 2, 2011. I postulated a benign conspiracy in which the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was no more than a puppet obeying the orders of his US master, a conspiracy in which the leaders were the US, Britain – since the British poodle follows wherever the American juggernaut goes - and India. That the leader was the US has been shown by the fact that it is the US that is the prime mover of the anti-Sri lanka Resolution at the UNHRC. That Britain has a special role was shown by the antics of Prime Minister Cameron when he was here for the Commonwealth Summit. As for India’s involvement, it seemed far-fetched and irresponsible speculation on my part, but my thesis seemed to receive spectacular substantiation when later India unexpectedly voted for the anti-Sri Lanka Resolution and did so in the following year as well, going against its own explicit policy of never supporting country specific Resolutions.

Benign conspiracy

The purpose of the benign conspiracy was, I argued, two-fold. The US and the West as a whole want to promote a new world order based on democracy with a special focus on human rights, because they genuinely believe that that is the most effective specific for a really satisfactory new world order. Their helping to resolve SL’s Tamil ethnic problem is part of the promotion of a new world order. But I argued also that the promotion of a new world order is not an entirely benign affair because the obverse side of the new world order is the new imperialism. On this I will make some observations further down in this article. The other part of the purpose is to help India solve the Tamil ethnic problem, which for India is far more important than the promotion of a new world order. That is why the questions of investigations into war crimes and sanctions have been relegated to the background: they would spoil the climate for ethnic accommodation and solutions.

I believe that contrary to appearances it is India, not the US, which is the main actor in the drama that is being enacted in Geneva, and that in the last resort the West – though it is not there to serve the purposes of India – will defer to India’s wishes on Sri Lanka. One reason for this is that India has a legitimate, and indeed vital, interest in what happens to the SL Tamils because of the fall-out in Tamil Nadu. Another is that since India is an emerging great power and is already a regional power, we can expect a general recognition that Sri Lanka is India’s turf – on which point I have to make some clarifications.

It is not an invariant law in international relations that the weaker neighbours of a regional power or a great power are recognized as the latter’s turf. All sorts of variables can enter into the equation. China had to contend with the extreme hostility of the entire West and the Soviet Union and therefore could not establish its sphere of influence, claiming that any of its neighbours is its turf. On the other hand the US enunciated the Monroe Doctrine in the nineteenth century whereby it would not interfere in the affairs of Europe while the latter in reciprocity would not interfere in the affairs of Latin America. The result was that the entirety of Latin America became the US’s turf. In the early sixties of the last century the Soviet Union stationed missiles in Cuba and almost ignited a full-scale nuclear war. The resolution of the crisis was through the withdrawal of the missiles from Cuba and the US’s reciprocal withdrawal of its missiles from Turkey, in recognition of the principle that neither must push its power right up to the borders of the other and that each had the right to its turf. At present the US is going against that principle in the Ukraine, in a fit of bellicose idiocy to which the US has too often been prone. In the case of India all the powerful countries of our time want India to be on their side, which means that it is free to establish its turf where it can. There is also the immensely important geographical fact that Sri Lanka is India’s only neighbour to the south, and that it is indefensible against India. I am going into all these details about "turf" because it seems to me of crucial importance to understand that India can wield decisive power for or against Sri Lanka with the West.

New imperialism

I come now to the obverse side of the new world order which is the new imperialism. In my last article I wrote, "On the other hand, the issue of war crimes investigations probably matters little or nothing to India, except as an instrument of pressure. It could matter much more for the US as it could serve the purposes of American imperialism – I will explain this point later". In an unusually perceptive comment one of my readers has asked why the US has been so much concerned about Sri Lanka. My answer, which I had in mind when I wrote the sentence quoted above, is this: the American Empire has been in serious decline, it can no longer take on any really powerful country in military conflict, and therefore to show that it is still the mightiest world power it picks quarrels with militarily insignificant countries, such as Iraq, and ravages them. It is the thesis argued in a brilliant book by Emmanuel Todd, After Empire, first published in 2002. The US interest in Sri Lanka could have sinister implications. It is certainly a subject requiring in-depth examination.

I feel that our Tamils should do some rethinking about the usefulness of the UNHRC for their purposes. It is quite understandable, indeed inevitable, that they should have recourse in one way or another to the UNHRC, but they shouldn’t have too high expectations about what can be accomplished through it. The most significant fact about the UNHRC is that the decision-makers there are all representatives of Governments. The human rights movement has become, after 1945, a mighty redoubtable revolutionary force, expressing the thrust towards a better life of the peoples of the world. But human rights are for the most part what have to be extorted from unwilling governments by the peoples of the world. Most third world governments are allergic to human rights while the Western ones are lukewarm about them. Consequently, the determinants behind the decisions made at the UNHRC are not human rights but politics and the configurations of power. We have had a striking illustration of that fact in the US draft Resolution.

Diminution of sovereignty

What should we do about the US Resolution when it is finally presented? It has increased the number of issues on which our Government could be called to account, which entails a diminution of our sovereignty. That could represent a process whereby weak countries such as Sri Lanka are left with hardly any sovereignty worth speaking about, all in the name of a new world order. But the obverse side of that is the new imperialism, and what that could mean was brought home to us by the savage horror visited on Iraq by the imperialist American aggressor. We should therefore reject the Resolution in toto, but we must be able to do that without harming ourselves. I believe that might be possible if we make a real success of 13A and move in an increasingly democratic direction, setting in motion a process of organic growth that could lead to a political solution and ethnic reconciliation. We can then give to the intrusive interfering foreign busybodies the sage advice given by Woody Allen in the film The Front to the members of the Committee investigating un-American activities: "You can all go and **** yourselves".zethhussain@gmail.com

From Jennings to Geneva:
Sri Lanka’s tortuous decline

March 15, 2014, 6:13 pm 

Rajan Philips

There have been quite a few news reports and nostalgic commentaries on Sir Ivor Jennings inspired by the visit to the Peradeniya campus by his granddaughter, Catherine Watson. Sir Ivor’s pioneering contribution to university education in Sri Lanka has not been sufficiently honoured and appreciated. For several decades, honouring Jennings was a one-man mission for the late H.A.I. (Ian) Goonetilleke, the venerable bibliographer of Sri Lankan scholarship. Ian fought a lone battle against powerful odds and without any official resources to remember and honour Jennings, to preserve his writings and to publish some of them. It was not just the establishment for, as has been duly noted by the popular "People and Events" columnist Nan, even the student population at its boorish worst spurned the efforts in the 1970s to honour Jennings with a statue or monument on the campus he founded. Perhaps a better way of honouring Jennings today, than statues or street names that are no longer a mark of distinction, would be for the universities to offer (seminar or reading) courses on Jennings, his work and his contributions to Sri Lanka.

Apart from nurturing the island’s first university and its picturesque campus, Jennings played a crucial role in the transfer of power from a colonial Governor to an indigenous government, and in the development of independent Lanka’s first constitution. Jennings was "honorary constitutional advisor" to DS Senanayake from May 1943 to February 1948, and a consummate participant observer in the Senanayake administration both before and after independence, from 1943 till Mr. Senanayake’s death in 1952. His monograph "The Constitution of Ceylon", first published in 1948 followed by two editions in 1950 and 1953, is still the foundational framework for assessing Sri Lanka’s constitutional development from the Soulbury Constitution (1947-72), through the First Republic (1972-78), to the Second Republic since 1978 with a seemingly unlimited term.

Some of us born in 1948 or after have been fortunate enough to experience Jennings through hearsay from our intellectual mentors and more directly through his own writings. He wrote not just on the constitution, but on the resplendent land’s flora and fauna, and the culture of its people including their food habits, describing in one instance, the "innumerable small dishes of curries" that decorate a sumptuous Lankan meal. He offered the insights of a trained mind into the structures of our society and its nascent transition from being a traditional caste-society to an emerging modern nation-society. The political manifestation of that unevenly unfolding transition is what I have ventured to call, for the purpose of this article - Sri Lanka’s tortuous decline from Jennings to Geneva.

The making of the Soulbury Constitution

I will start with Jennings’s description of how things were during what he has called "The Making of the Constitution" (Chapter 1 of "The Constitution of Ceylon") from May 1943 to May 1946. There were three key players involved in the process: the Colonial Office in London, the Governor in Colombo and the Board of Ministers of the State Council functioning under the Donoughmore Constitution. The final constitutional reform leading up to independence began with the British government’s Declaration of 1943, which ambiguously laid down the purpose of reforming the constitution towards granting Sri Lanka "full responsible government", and the procedure for achieving it. Making its own interpretation of the London Declaration, the Board of Ministers set out to draft a new constitution for Sri Lanka, which after years and some changes would become independent Sri Lanka’s first constitution, better known as the Soulbury Constitution.

"The major difficulty, however, was the minority problem", wrote Jennings, while "the rest of the constitution was comparatively easy." How was this difficult problem addressed? While Jennings claims no credit for himself, according to AJ Wilson, Jennings, as the adviser to D.S.Senanayake and the principal drafter of the "Ministers’ Draft Scheme" (as it was officially called), was instrumental in incorporating various safeguards to protect minority rights. The safeguards addressed the main concerns in regard to representation in parliament, equal treatment before the law, and fairness in recruitment to government jobs, by providing weightage in representation, a rigid constitution requiring two-thirds majority for amendment, and independent public service and judicial service commissions.

While there was good understanding between the colonial rulers and the Board of Ministers in regard to the purpose and even the content of the new constitution, there was a misunderstanding about procedure. The Board of Ministers understood the procedure as literally requiring the support of "three quarters of the State Council" for its draft constitution. To the Colonial Office, the requirement of "three quarters" support was intended to "compel the Ministers to negotiate an agreed draft with the minorities, or some of them." The Ministers did not negotiate anything with the minorities, and Jennings has noted that "nobody in Ceylon had understood this to be the intention." He goes on to say: "Not only had it not been done, but some of the minority members protested to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that they had not been allowed to express their views on the Ministers’ draft."

This was the background to the Soulbury Commssion, whose task, Jennings notes, was very different from that of the Donoughmore Commission seventeen years earlier. While the latter had to create a new constitution, the former was tasked with approving one of three constitutional alternatives: 1) Do nothing and let the Donoughmore Constitution continue, and nobody was in favour of this; 2) the Ministers’ draft, which had about two-thirds support in the State Council (SC); and 3) the Tamil Congress scheme focused on "balanced representation", which would have garnered 12 votes in the SC. In the end, it was the Ministers’ Draft with modifications and embellishments that became the Soulbury Constitution. The main changes were the addition of a Second Chamber, flexible powers given to the Delimitation Commission, and the increase in the powers of the independent Public Service Commission.

At its core, the Soulbury Constitution was meant to be the "communal compact" between the Sinhalese, the Tamils, and the Muslims, and "the rest of the constitution was comparatively easy", to re-quote Jennings. The communal compact was formally sealed when G.G. Ponnambalam joined the D.S.Senanayake cabinet soon after independence, leaving, as Jennings as casually noted, "only a small Tamil section, which produced a scheme (or at least an idea) for a federal constitution" … in opposition." Notably, the word ‘unitary’ does not appear in Jennings’s monograph. But what he describes in passing, in Chapter 2 ("Independent Status") of the monograph, as British success in establishing "a democracy by convention while remaining a monarchy in legal theory", could well be tried even belatedly in Sri Lanka to establish devolution by convention and practice, while remaining a unitary state in constitutional theory. Jennings saw no inconsistency between laws and conventions when the latter reverse the effects of the former.

The tortuous decline

Describing the "Political Developments since 1947" (Chapter 3), Jennings observed that the "first United National Party Government had an easy passage," and attributed it to a weak and divided opposition with political issues being "more controversial outside parliament than inside." Of the official opposition party, Sir Ivor wrote, the "Lanka Sama Samaja Party was well managed by its leader, Dr N.M. Perera, but it lacked personnel." Even though "Mr D.S. Senanayake was thrown from his horse and died on 22 March 1952," the second UNP government elected later that year "was even stronger … than it had been in 1948." Yet, by the time Sir Ivor Jennings left Sri Lanka in January, 1954, political storm clouds were already gathering. Writing in March 1953, for the Third Edition of the book, Jennings noted that "the period of ‘easy money’ had come to an end, and in 1952-53, the government faced the prospect of a heavy deficit in the revenue". The 1953 August Hartal had forced Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake to resign and he was replaced by the ebullient but blundering Sir John Kotelawala. The latter shattered the communal compact by firing G.G. Ponnambalam from the cabinet. SWRD Bandaranaike, whose departure from the government in 1951 had been seen as a blessing in disguise for the UNP government, was only an election away from capturing the highest prize that he had always considered to be his entitlement.

But what Sir Ivor Jennings, like Lord Soulbury, would not have foreseen was the swiftness with which the political pre-suppositions of the Soulbury (Jennings) constitution would be undermined by one government after another. It was not the ‘unitary’ nature of the constitution that led to the undermining but acts of parliament that eroded minority rights in violation of the spirit of the constitution and the judicial reluctance to challenge these violations. Eventually, with the adoption of the 1972 and the 1978 constitutions, even "the rest of the constitution" that Jennings considered to be "comparatively easy" in 1947, were made unnecessarily difficult, rigid, and presently frozen. It is not just the minority rights that are of concern today, but the overpowering of the public services, public spending, the judiciary, and parliament itself by the executive president with hardly any check or balance. Jennings, who died prematurely of cancer in 1965, could not have foreseen the abandonment of the slowly evolving parliamentary-cabinet system and its replacement by a rapidly degenerating presidential-cabinet system.

Geneva represents the nadir of Sri Lanka’s constitutional and political decline after independence. The "minority problem" that Jennings considered "the major difficulty"in the making of the Soulbury Constitution nearly seventy years ago, is now the Sri Lankan government’s insurmountable international hurdle. For the third year in succession, the UNHRC is set to pass a resolution against the Sri Lankan government. That the draft 2014 resolution has excluded the call for international investigation of wartime excesses could hardly be a solace, let alone a victory, for the government, because the new draft widens the scope of international oversight of the Sri Lankan government. In addition to repeating the call to implement the recommendations of the LLRC Commission, the new resolution brings within the purview of the UNHRC – the attacks on religious minorities, the army attack on Weliweriya protesters, and the government’s reluctance "to provide the Northern Provincial Council with the authority and resources to govern as required by the 13th Amendment of Sri Lanka’s constitution."India’s hand in the draft could be seen in the exclusion of the call for international investigation, while giving the Sri Lankan government more time to put in place a "credible national process" of investigation, and in the specific reference to the 13th Amendment for the first time in an international resolution on Sri Lanka.

The government may reject the resolution as unacceptable, as Minister G.L. Peiris has already indicated in his opening speech in Geneva. But this rejection is not even a formality because the government is promising at the same time to work with the UNHRC and it intends to attend the Geneva sessions twice a year and by the looks of it forever. It will not boycott the UNHRC sessions and insisting on rejection without boycotting is practically meaningless. Nor is Sri Lanka’s predicament going to be attenuated by attacking the United States for its hypocrisy. President Clinton once remarked that his country must project itself to the world through "the power of its example and not the example of its power." While the world must condemn the example of American power, many countries including Sri Lanka would do well to learn from the power of the American example of a progressively inclusive constitutional democracy.

Speaking of constitutional democracy, Sir Ivor Jennings left Sri Lanka’s constitutional development on a firm footing. I am not suggesting that Jennings is beyond criticism, and there have been many criticisms of Jennings in Sri Lanka and elsewhere especially in regard to his reluctance to including a Bill of Rights in the constitution. But what Sri Lanka has done in dispensing with the Soulbury Constitution and replacing it with not one but two homegrown substitutes is so horrendous that Jennings’s contributions look all the more superhuman. In regard to the "minority problem" that was his "major difficulty", Jennings offered this insight: "As always happens when constitutional reform is under discussion for long periods, members had pledged themselves to conflicting principles." In other words, long periods of constitutional discussion reinforces inflexibility. And Sri Lanka has had a longer than long period in reinforcing its internal inflexibilities. Every new generation has created its own constitutional idiocies. The upshot is the annual pilgrimage to Geneva.

-- 

UNHRC, a ‘post box’ of yankees

UNHRC, a ‘post box’ - Rohitha Bogollagama

by Manjula Fernando

Former Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama said the UNHRC in Geneva has been made a ‘post box’ to communicate matters to Sri Lanka when there were more pressing global issues which need the attention of the UN Rights Body.

He said that he had never witnessed a country specific resolution being repeated like this at the UNHRC, as if it is a means to channel communiques by individual members, without giving the country concerned sufficient time to implement any action to redeem itself or prove its innocence. He was commenting on the US’s ongoing efforts to move the third resolution against Sri Lanka.

Bogollagama told the Sunday Observer that when the UN Secretary General Banki Moon was in Sri Lanka on May 23, 2009, he visited the key places of the humanitarian operation, and there was an exchange of views prior to releasing a joint statement.

“In the statement, the devotion for accountability was only one line, where Sri Lanka will take steps in terms of accountability.” Bogollagama said the statement did not speak of Sri Lanka committing war crimes.

In fact, by then, the UN would have known that there were crimes against humanity and war crimes if such things had been committed.

At that time they could have insisted that Sri Lanka has to account for war crimes, but there was no such thing.

He said individual countries have now got on to the Human Rights bandwagon including the US in a bid to concoct stories against Sri Lanka and this threat needs to be defeated with constant and vigorous engagement of member states at the UN Human Rights Council.

He said the US resolution not calling for an international investigation was far more dangerous than calling for one now. “It has been built with a lot of intricate, penetrating diplomatic know-how to impose the UNHRC will on Sri Lanka.”

He said had they called for an international probe in plain terms, we could have easily rejected it.

Crimea but yankee want other ways

 Jubilian Criemans citizen celebrating Going back home to  Russia  but


Pro-Russian Crimeans wave Russian flags as they gather to celebrate in Simferopol’s Lenin Square on March 16, 2014 after exit polls showed that about 93 percent of voters in Ukraine’s Crimea region supported union with Russia. Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join former political master Russia as tensions soared in the east of the splintered ex-Soviet nation amid the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War.

TRAITORS ALWAYS GIVE AWAY THE NATION OF PERSONAL BENIFITS

Like in  the good old day Locals who carried the bags of the aliens who gave all inform to destabilise,in return were given land and titles.

Missing journalist’s wife in Geneva, confers with GTF chief

March 18, 2014, 9:40 pm 

Global Tamil Forum leader, Rev. Father S.J. Emmanuel with Mrs. Ekneligoda

by Shamindra Ferdinando

Sandhya Ekneligoda, wife of missing media personality, Prageeth is now in Geneva to back US-led resolution targeting Sri Lanka at the ongoing Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session

On her arrival in Geneva, Mrs. Ekneligoda was met by Rev. Father, S. J. Emmanuel, head of the UK based Global Tamil Forum (GTF), one of the most influential Diaspora grouping wanting to haul Sri Lanka up before an international war crimes tribunal.

Tamil sources told The Island yesterday that Mrs. Ekneligoda, in an interview with a website operated by Srigugan, Switzerland-based brother of Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) MP, Sivagnanam Sritharan reiterated her accusations that the Sri Lankan government was responsible for the disappearance of her husband several years ago. Sources said that the Diaspora felt that Mrs. Ekneligoda’s representations were as important as those made by Northern Provincial Council member, Ananthi Sasitharan over the past few days.

Sources said that in spite of some differences among major Diaspora groups, they were working on a common agenda to secure the support of member states of the UNHRC for the US-UK led resolution. The 47-member UNHRC is divided into five regional groupings.

Sources said that Diaspora groups were also planning to bring Vathsala Devi, wife of one-time LTTE Batticaloa District leader, ‘Colonel’ T. Ramesh to Geneva. US-based Devi had been working closely with the Tamil Eelam Transnational Government (TGTE) headed by one-time LTTE legal advisor, attorney-at-law, V. Rudrakumaran, sources said.

Asked whether the GTF had facilitated Mrs. Ekneligoda’s visit to Geneva, GTF spokesperson, Suren Surendiran said that the group wasn’t involved. Speaking to The Island from Geneva, Surendiran said: "We feel the pain of Mrs. Sandhya Ekneligoda, her two young children as a family still searching for their disappeared husband and father. Therefore we meet her, talk to her, share her grief, introduce her to people who could help her find out the fate of her husband’s. We will continue to work with Sandhya and others who are in similar circumstances."

Surendiran further said: "However we are working in every international forum that we have access to exposing the current human rights situation and the need for accountability, justice and a negotiated political settlement that will address the Tamil National question comprehensively for sustained reconciliation between communities for all the peoples of the island to enjoy durable peace in the future."

-- 

THERE IS NO OUNCE OF DEMOCRACY WITH UNLCE

 NOT IN SPEECH  EG  Snowden, Julian
NOT IN BUSINESS  eg  too big to fall when friends involved.
Dissolve and get proportions  when dissolving is good for few Bad for  few  when running forprofit  for all eg FNMA AND FREDDI

Un  levelfield in business Political connections matters eg Dick and his...

No freedom like It or not GOT TO WAR  SERVE NATION
 

TRAMPLE BULLY SMALL DEFENSELESS NATIONS  SYRIA,EGYPT,SUDAN,TUNISIA, IRAQ,VIETNAM,SRI LANKA AND  MORE,....
FEARFUL OF  NORTH KOREA, IRAN,CHINA,RUSSIA.

GO WHERE THE OIL IS AT ANY COST.SPREAD THE WAY OF LIFE USE AND THROW FOR ECONOMIC BENEFITS.

US barks loud Russia cannot hear EVEN

Big powers standing exposed over Ukraine

March 5, 2014, 8:49 pm 

UKRAINE, Kiev : US Secretary of State John Kerry walks at the barricade at the Shrine of the Fallen of anti-government protesters in Kiev on March 4, 2014. Kerry arrived in Kiev for talks with Ukraine’s new interim government, amid an escalating crisis in Crimea.AFP PHOTO/ SERGEI SUPINSKY

The trading of accusations between Russia and the West over the crisis in Ukraine has more than a whiff of Cold War politics and exposes both parties to the criticism of being dismissive of value-based international relations. Neither the West nor Russia could claim to be strict adherents of International Law in this dramatic face-off which has profound implications for international stability,

A reported Russian troop presence in the Crimean peninsula had compelled US President Barack Obama to tell his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that a ‘breach of International Law’ has occurred, but the same allegation could be leveled at the US over, for instance, its military invasion of Iraq in 2003. If, as the West says, a ‘violation of Ukrainian sovereignty’ has occurred, the observer with an interest in impartiality could very well ask: what of Iraq and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan? What of the violation of Pakistan’s air space as a result of the numerous drone strikes which are claiming mainly civilian lives?

The reference to these possible counter-accusations should not be interpreted as an attempt at absolving Russia of any blame in this crisis. The Russian troop presence in the Crimea is a clear indication that Ukraine’s sovereignty has been violated and this fact cannot be glossed over or ignored. But neither party could afford to be moralistic or self-righteous in international crises of this kind because they could both be found to be wanting in their adherence to the core principles of International Law in international relations practice.

Even before the Western military invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US stood International Law on its head by violating Serbia’s air space in the Kosovan crisis of 1999. There are commentators who regard this violation as an irreversible major subversion of the international political order which was sought to be created with the ushering of the UN system in the wake of the ending of World War Two. Serbia’s sovereignty was violated with impunity by the US and the event could be regarded as a forerunner to the violations of International Law by the West which followed.

It is plain to see that the West and Russia have been driven primarily by their national interests in these crisis situations. Russia regards many of the regions which constitute Eastern Europe as essential for the preservation of her security and she is likely to be committed to this position even in these post-Soviet times. Ideally, Russia would prefer to see friendly governments in her ‘backyard’ and this has been a prime factor in her decision to establish a military presence in the Crimea. The same consideration weighed heavily with her when she decided to figure in the Georgian crisis in 2008.

Russian concerns ought to be compounded by the fact that many of her former East European satellites are today in the Western camp and are associated with its military formations. Many of them are also in an effort to seek EU membership. Thus, Russia cannot help but look over her shoulder constantly at her Eastern border.

This is typical Cold War conduct on the part of Russia, no doubt, but is the US giving Russia reason to believe that it is serious in its commitment to upholding international relations best practices?

As in the case of Russia, the national interest, narrowly interpreted, accounts for the US’ military (mis)adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has to enjoy a substantial military presence in South West Asia on account of the vast oil reserves in the region and this is a predominant factor in her decision to be involved militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, the US needs to keep Iran in check.

Overall, the US would prefer to perpetuate a hegemonistic presence in the Asia-Pacific region because this region is the veritable growth centre of the global economy. If Western economic interests are to be protected in the Asia-Pacific region, then a US military presence which is substantial could be seen as essential.

Accordingly, none of the parties, neither the US nor Russia, could claim to be ‘holier than the other’. They are essentially guided by their national interests in the Ukrainian crisis, as in the case of many other conflict situations, and both parties stand accused of indulging in ‘double-speak’ and ‘double-think’.

Russia is on record that its moves in Ukraine are also determined by its concern for persons of Russian descent in that country, but an effort seems to be afoot to stir nationalist fervour in Russia on account of this factor. Consequently, one cannot avoid observing that such sentiments could lead to a deeper polarization of the major communities in the Ukraine.

Considering the ease with which these major powers jettison all regard for the principal norms and values of cooperative international relations and practices, the question could be raised anew whether any notable efforts have been made over the decades by the big powers at establishing international equity and justice. In other words, to what degree are they committed to the UN system and its core values?

It seems that the major powers would be predisposed to pursuing their individual interests at even considerable costs, when it is perceived that these interests are under threat, and that they would even do so to the detriment of the collective wholesome aims of the international community.

Considering the above, international relations theorist cannot be faulted for adopting the view that it is Political Realism that provides the most valid viewpoint to study the inter-state conduct of the major powers. The majority of states give the impression of being committed to what are considered liberal values and ideals in their relations with each other, but it is individual interests, narrowly conceived, which seem to be weighing most heavily with the major powers in particular in times of crisis.

The challenge before the world community is to change these predilections of the big powers if the greater good of humanity is to be served even to a degree. Right now, there is no indication that doubly serious consequences would flow for the international community from the crisis in the Ukraine, but one cannot rule out the possibility of developments taking a catastrophic turn for the world in the future, as a result of such crises. The world has no choice but to progressively bolster the UN system.

AFRICA IS FOR CHINESE

GoSL receives S. African backing in Geneva

March 5, 2014, 9:49 pm 

Nkoana-Mashabane

South Africa strongly supported Sri Lanka’s post-war national reconciliation process at the ongoing session of the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Addressing the 47-member states of the council as well as other delegates, South African International Relations and Cooperation Minister, Nkoana-Mashabane said: "The Human Rights Council has been seized with the issue of Sri Lanka for a while. Let me share with you our approach to the Sri Lanka situation. It is important that we allow Sri Lankans to find each other, and out of this find solutions that are durable for their country. We as, as South Africans also had to find each other and consequently find our own solution to our own problem. This is our wish for the people of Sri Lanka.South Africa recently appointed a special envoy to explore ways and means of assisting Sri Lanka’s reconciliation efforts. The statement was made in the backdrop of some Diaspora groups calling South Africa to quit its initiative in Sri Lanka.

Commenting on the situation in Palestine, Minister Nkoana-Mashabane said: "It is a shame that the Palestinian people continue to be denied their inalienable right to self-determination and continue to have their rights trampled on by an occupying force that has itself known what it is to be victimized in the same manner that it is victimizing and displacing Palestinian people. It is even more saddening that this Council has thus far failed to hold the occupying force accountable for its action. Instead more is demanded of the Palestinian people and less is done to restore their dignity."

US resolution, Pillay’s report inflict harm on reconciliation – GoSL March 5, 2014, 9:48 pm

US resolution, Pillay’s report inflict harm on reconciliation – GoSL

March 5, 2014, 9:48 pm 

Prof. G.L. Peiris addressing UNHRC session in Geneva

Sri Lanka yesterday rejected a US-led resolution meant to pave the way for an international investigation into accountability issues in Sri Lanka.

The resolution jointly tabled by the UK, Montenegro, Macedonia and Mauritius welcomed UNHRC Chief Navi Pillay’s recommendations and conclusions on the need for an independent and credible international investigation in the absence of a credible national process with tangible results.

 External Affairs Minister, Prof. G. L. Peiris yesterday told the 25th Session of the Geneva-based body that the government of Sri Lanka rejected the resolution as well as the UNHRC Chief’s report in its entirety as they were fundamentally flawed.

Minister Peiris said: "These initiatives disregard the substantial progress made by the Government during the five years which have elapsed since the end of the thirty year war against terrorism. They also pay scant regard to the complexities and local nuances of a sensitive reconciliation process, while eroding confidence of the people of Sri Lanka by the constant changing of unjustifiable demands. Moreover, they persist in an attitude which is clearly disproportionate to the circumstances and inconsistent with the treatment of comparable situations. It is much to be regretted that the High Commissioner’s Report and those who exalt its virtues only seek to inflict harm on the reconciliation process by bringing about a polarisation of the Sri Lankan society."Prof. Peiris reiterated Sri Lanka’s continued cooperation and engagement with the UNHRC.

The resolution, which is to be voted at the end of this month, will be the third in as many year since the conclusion of the conflict.

 The resolution also recommends the establishment of a truth seeking mechanism, a national reparations policy, to hold individuals responsible accountable for violations of international human rights law, investigate all attacks against religious minorities, journalists, human rights defenders and civil society.

 The resolution seeks meaningful devolution of powers in terms of the 13th amendment to the constitution and to empower the Tamil chief minister in the north with necessary resources and authority.

Minister Peiris told the UNHRC: "The High Commissioner’s Report has exceeded its mandate by making reference to and recommendations on numerous issues extraneous to the resolution. Additionally, the recommendations contained in the Report are arbitrary, intrusive and of a political nature, and are not placed within the ambit of the LLRC, as demonstrated by the call to establish an international inquiry mechanism. Further, this recommendation is in contravention of her mandate granted by GA Resolution 48/141, particularly Articles 3(a) and 4(g). In the Government’s detailed "Comments" on the Report, it has also regretted that the High Commissioner has raised concerns regarding a range of issues based on information of questionable veracity and conclusions arrived at in a selective and arbitrary manner. Sri Lanka’s Comments have attempted to address some of the errors and misperceptions contained in the Report."

In an obvious reference to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcoming of Pillay’s report, Prof. Peiris said: "The references made in the Council welcoming the High Commissioner’s Report on Sri Lanka, even at the highest level of the UN are regrettable, particularly considering that it is based on questionable and baseless material including what has been processed outside the UN framework. The Council may recall in this regard that the Panel of Experts Report which was the culmination of a private consultation that the Secretary General sought for his own advice, and is not the product of any intergovernmental process, has been extensively resorted to by the High Commissioner in her Report to the Council, in a bid to legitimise it within the UN framework despite the lack of mandate in this regard."

"It is universally accepted that the High Commissioner and the OHCHR must remain transparent, objective and be guided solely by the mandate given by the UN. However, if the initiatives taken on Sri Lanka at this juncture by the OHCHR is to be the basis on which the country is to be judged, it will clearly be a travesty of justice.

It is in this context that we greatly value the sentiments expressed in the Council by countries which have similar experiences with regard to reconciliation, that Sri Lanka be provided with the requisite time and space to address their own process domestically in a comprehensive manner as opposed to those who continue to pay disproportionate attention to Sri Lanka, based on agendas driven by political motives."

Prof. Peiris said that in spite of the government of Sri Lanka cooperating with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), there had been a series of actions, in particular the introduction of country specific action on Sri Lanka in this Council. Such actions was evidence of lack of sensitivity in dealing with delicate situations and exposed the unfair and biased manner in which issues pertaining to Sri Lanka have been addressed.

The minister said: "Detailing of two of the most recent examples suffice.

In September 2013, in contravention of HRC resolution 5/1, specifically Rule 14 (47) and Paragraph 117 which casts a duty on the OHCHR that acts as the Secretariat of the Council to prepare and circulate documents for consideration by the Council in a timely manner, the text of the Oral Update of the High Commissioner was made available to Sri Lanka for response as the state concerned, with less than 20 hours remaining for its consideration in the Council."

"In February 2014, the non-adherance by the OHCHR to the request by Sri Lanka to publish the Comments by the State on the Report of the High Commissioner (A/HRC/25/23) as an Addendum to the Report in the current session in spite of existence of clear precedent in this regard and no rule to the contrary governing Addenda and submission of comments by the State on HC / SG Country Reports, is again in contravention of the Methods of Work of the Council which clearly state at Paragraph 110 of the IB package that "The methods of work, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 should be transparent, impartial, equitable, fair, pragmatic; lead to clarity, predictability, and  inclusiveness. They may also be updated and adjusted over time."

"These are examples of patent bias demonstrated by the OHCHR in addressing issues in relation to Sri Lanka. The OHCHR’s most recent act of placing the Comments of the Government of Sri Lanka on the Report A/HRC/25/23 under ‘Communications from Governments’, has seriously impeded the visibility and integrity of between the Report and the Comments by the State. It not only reflects a lack of transparency, but also clearly denies Sri Lanka a level playing field to present its point of view. The unequal treatment meted out to Sri Lanka by the OHCHR in the above instance defeats the very principles upheld by the Council.

The procedural concerns that Sri Lanka has raised with the President of the Council with regard to the above anomalies have wider relevance to member and observer states of the Council. They also raise serious questions on politicization and collusion of interests against Sri Lanka."