Child abuse cases up by 45%: CPA
Wednesday, December 31,2008
COLOMBO: The Child Protection Authority (CPA) has claimed there has been a 45 percent increase in child abuse and child rights violations cases this year, compared to 2007. Within the first ten months of 2008, a total of 1014 cases of child violence had been reported, including 357 child abuse cases. However, CPA Chairperson, Jagath Wellawatte said the figure only indicated an increase in reporting child abuse cases and not an actual increase in child abuse and rights violations.
“This is the result of the awareness programmes that the CPA has conducted throughout last year,” he said, adding that throughout 2008 they carried out several island wide programmes with prevention as its theme.
The CPA carried out three main programmes, which included setting up grass root level alert groups, child protection units within school level and awareness campaigns covering all parties of the community, including school van and trishaw drivers, nurses, final year students of teachers training institutions and midwives.
Wellawatte also said that compared to European countries, Sri Lanka has a higher rate of child violence cases due to the lack of reporting these incidents. “When these things are not reported, the people who conducted this sort of acts are not scared,” he asserted.
The programmes conducted by the CPA have created a vast awareness among the masses regarding child abuse, and the importance of protecting child rights. As a result Wellawatte said that now when people identify an incident involving child violence, they do not hesitate to report these cases.
“We are hoping to expand our programmes in 2009. To trigger our activities, the CPA has taken measures to announce January 4th as the National day Against Child Violence. This day will thereafter be observed on January 4 every year”, said Wellawatte. He added that cabinet approval has already been granted, and they were awaiting the gazette notification to implement the declaration.
end:
Child Abuse, and Sex Tourism is grossly under reported in Sri Lanka. T4J.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Jaffna Bishop appeals to leaders, foreign diplomats to bring in peace
Jaffna Bishop appeals to leaders, foreign diplomats to bring in peace
[TamilNet, Thursday, 01 January 2009, 00:01 GMT]
“The Holy See Benedict XVI had urged President Mahinda Rajapaksa to stop the war and strive for peace when the president met the Holy Pope at Vatican but the war atrocities have only escalated since then,” Rt. Rev. Thomas Saundaranayagam, Bishop of Jaffna said in his New Year message for the year 2009. “The appeal made by the Bishops in Sri Lanka to stop the war too remains rejected, “ the message said.
Even appeals made by several countries including India to stop the war had gone unheeded, the new year message continued to say.
The leaders of Sri Lanka and the foreign ambassadors stationed here should take into consideration the injustice committed against the peoples and work hard to find a permanent solution, the Bishop said in his message.
The government’s war to capture the Vanni has resulted in the loss of lives and thousands of people being displaced in the year 2008. Jaffna peninsula and Vanni kept reverberating in the artillery fire and aerial attacks, the message said.
Moreover, people had to face severe economic crisis and natural disasters in Vanni and Jaffna peninsula including a major flood, it further pointed out.
One cannot remain unconcerned about human lives when the people have to face a new year amidst great suffering and while the government looks forward to a new year in a state of 'victorious exhilaration,' the Bishop observed in his message.
“I pray to God that all people should lead a life without the fear of war, happily and in prosperity, in an atmosphere where human rights are respected, in the year 2009,” the Bishop sought the blessings of God.
[TamilNet, Thursday, 01 January 2009, 00:01 GMT]
“The Holy See Benedict XVI had urged President Mahinda Rajapaksa to stop the war and strive for peace when the president met the Holy Pope at Vatican but the war atrocities have only escalated since then,” Rt. Rev. Thomas Saundaranayagam, Bishop of Jaffna said in his New Year message for the year 2009. “The appeal made by the Bishops in Sri Lanka to stop the war too remains rejected, “ the message said.
Even appeals made by several countries including India to stop the war had gone unheeded, the new year message continued to say.
The leaders of Sri Lanka and the foreign ambassadors stationed here should take into consideration the injustice committed against the peoples and work hard to find a permanent solution, the Bishop said in his message.
The government’s war to capture the Vanni has resulted in the loss of lives and thousands of people being displaced in the year 2008. Jaffna peninsula and Vanni kept reverberating in the artillery fire and aerial attacks, the message said.
Moreover, people had to face severe economic crisis and natural disasters in Vanni and Jaffna peninsula including a major flood, it further pointed out.
One cannot remain unconcerned about human lives when the people have to face a new year amidst great suffering and while the government looks forward to a new year in a state of 'victorious exhilaration,' the Bishop observed in his message.
“I pray to God that all people should lead a life without the fear of war, happily and in prosperity, in an atmosphere where human rights are respected, in the year 2009,” the Bishop sought the blessings of God.
Relief package only for companies, not for people - UNP
Relief package only for companies, not for people - UNP
Wednesday, 31 December 2008 20:01
The Rajapaksa regime has attempted to deceive the people once again as they are stepping into 2009, by announcing which it claims the biggest relief package in recent history, but in actual fact a mere reduction in fuel and gas prices, said UNP spokesman Gayantha Karunatilake.
Speaking to the media in Colombo today (Dec. 31), he accused the present regime of disrespecting the country's law and its people and acting in an authoritarian, shortsighted and inefficient manner.
"When the electronic media announced breaking news last night, everybody thought the Rajapaksas had captured Velupillai Prabhakaran or Kilinochchi, but they did not expect a deception like that."
Every country is having considerable fuel and commodity price reductions, but the present Sri Lankan regime had granted mere reductions - Rs. 10.00 for petrol and kerosene oil, Rs. 02 for diesel, 75 litres per month for trishaws at a rate reduced by Rs. 20, Shell Gas by Rs. 166 and Laugfs Gas by Rs. 276, he said.
It is clear that these reductions are not on par with world market reductions.
The excuse given by commerce minister Bandula Gunawardena at the last gas price increase was since gas is a byproduct of crude and the crude price has gone up rapidly in the world market, it is known even to an infant that the local price should be increased.
"By now, the world crude price has come down by 109 US dollars per barrel, and according to the commerce minister's calculations, the gas price should come down by Rs. 750, which is known even to an infant," said Mr. Karunatilake.
He wanted to know from the minister whether he had intended such a deception when he promised a considerable price decrease in the New Year.
"The government has reduced the petrol price by Rs. 02, but earns a 180 per cent profit from petrol. While earning such a profit, how can it claim that it had given concessions to the people? Is it a real concession for trishaws that they are given a maximum of four litres a day at a price reduced by Rs. 20? Does the government think motorcyclists as being rich people as they have not been given any concession?"
"Considering world market fuel prices, it is possible to give petrol at Rs. 80 per litre, diesel at Rs. 55 per litre and kerosene oil at Rs. 45 per litre. Had we had a government of our own, we would definitely have given petrol at Rs. 55 a litre, diesel Rs. 32 a litre and kerosene oil at Rs. 26 a litre," he added.
Wednesday, 31 December 2008 20:01
The Rajapaksa regime has attempted to deceive the people once again as they are stepping into 2009, by announcing which it claims the biggest relief package in recent history, but in actual fact a mere reduction in fuel and gas prices, said UNP spokesman Gayantha Karunatilake.
Speaking to the media in Colombo today (Dec. 31), he accused the present regime of disrespecting the country's law and its people and acting in an authoritarian, shortsighted and inefficient manner.
"When the electronic media announced breaking news last night, everybody thought the Rajapaksas had captured Velupillai Prabhakaran or Kilinochchi, but they did not expect a deception like that."
Every country is having considerable fuel and commodity price reductions, but the present Sri Lankan regime had granted mere reductions - Rs. 10.00 for petrol and kerosene oil, Rs. 02 for diesel, 75 litres per month for trishaws at a rate reduced by Rs. 20, Shell Gas by Rs. 166 and Laugfs Gas by Rs. 276, he said.
It is clear that these reductions are not on par with world market reductions.
The excuse given by commerce minister Bandula Gunawardena at the last gas price increase was since gas is a byproduct of crude and the crude price has gone up rapidly in the world market, it is known even to an infant that the local price should be increased.
"By now, the world crude price has come down by 109 US dollars per barrel, and according to the commerce minister's calculations, the gas price should come down by Rs. 750, which is known even to an infant," said Mr. Karunatilake.
He wanted to know from the minister whether he had intended such a deception when he promised a considerable price decrease in the New Year.
"The government has reduced the petrol price by Rs. 02, but earns a 180 per cent profit from petrol. While earning such a profit, how can it claim that it had given concessions to the people? Is it a real concession for trishaws that they are given a maximum of four litres a day at a price reduced by Rs. 20? Does the government think motorcyclists as being rich people as they have not been given any concession?"
"Considering world market fuel prices, it is possible to give petrol at Rs. 80 per litre, diesel at Rs. 55 per litre and kerosene oil at Rs. 45 per litre. Had we had a government of our own, we would definitely have given petrol at Rs. 55 a litre, diesel Rs. 32 a litre and kerosene oil at Rs. 26 a litre," he added.
Tamil Nadu's upraising Energizes us to continue our Freedom Struggle -LTTE political Leader
Tamil Nadu's upraising Energizes us to continue our Freedom Struggle -LTTE political Leader
Jan 1, 2009, 01:35
G. Vickram - TNS
Vanni: Mr. B. Nadesan, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)’ political leader said, the widespread spontaneous awakenings in Tamil Nadu in supports of Eelam Tamils are historical events in our history of our just freedom struggle. He made this comment when he gave a keynote speech at an event in Tharmapuram among the teachers, principals, and general public near Killinochchi.
The Tamil Nadu uprising in support of Eelam Tamils are spontaneous and beyond their party affiliations, each and every party leaders are supporting Eelam Tamils and our legitimate struggle for freedom and voicing concerns for the plights of their brethrens in Eelam including the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, ruling party leaders and Opposition Leaders.
Tamil Nadu’s upraising naturally giving us the moral booster to us to continue to fight for our just rights. Eelam Tamils are struggling for the freedom for the past 30 years. Singhalese so far failed to bring any tangible, meaningful and acceptable fair solution for the six decades old problem of Tamils in Eelam forced us to fight for our self-determination rights.
The political leader said, the people continuously displacing many times due to the brutal Sri Lankan Security Forces (SF) attacks, shelling, bombing, multi barrel attacks and recent heavy floods. The Sri Lankan government’s relentless military onslaughts on our people and imposing complete blockade of food, medicines, and other basic essentials including cloths to these people causing severe and unprecedented level of hardships to our people and this situation greatly affects our people but our people faced these challenges for the past 30 years and we are determined to face this situation and continue to struggle for their freedom.
Eelam Tamils are not only fighting with the Sinhalese army in many fronts but also fighting the interested parties in the world who wants to prop up Sri Lanka against us. We are fighting for our just rights in the full backing and strength of just our people.
In supports of Eelam Tamil, every single day our brethrens in Tamil Nadu raising their concerns state wide. In India, not only in Tamil Nadu, many other states people are raising their concerns for the Eelam Tamils and their struggle for freedom. Changing mode in the world stage in support of our struggle energizes us to continue to fight for our just rights, the LTTE political leader said.
Jan 1, 2009, 01:35
G. Vickram - TNS
Vanni: Mr. B. Nadesan, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)’ political leader said, the widespread spontaneous awakenings in Tamil Nadu in supports of Eelam Tamils are historical events in our history of our just freedom struggle. He made this comment when he gave a keynote speech at an event in Tharmapuram among the teachers, principals, and general public near Killinochchi.
The Tamil Nadu uprising in support of Eelam Tamils are spontaneous and beyond their party affiliations, each and every party leaders are supporting Eelam Tamils and our legitimate struggle for freedom and voicing concerns for the plights of their brethrens in Eelam including the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, ruling party leaders and Opposition Leaders.
Tamil Nadu’s upraising naturally giving us the moral booster to us to continue to fight for our just rights. Eelam Tamils are struggling for the freedom for the past 30 years. Singhalese so far failed to bring any tangible, meaningful and acceptable fair solution for the six decades old problem of Tamils in Eelam forced us to fight for our self-determination rights.
The political leader said, the people continuously displacing many times due to the brutal Sri Lankan Security Forces (SF) attacks, shelling, bombing, multi barrel attacks and recent heavy floods. The Sri Lankan government’s relentless military onslaughts on our people and imposing complete blockade of food, medicines, and other basic essentials including cloths to these people causing severe and unprecedented level of hardships to our people and this situation greatly affects our people but our people faced these challenges for the past 30 years and we are determined to face this situation and continue to struggle for their freedom.
Eelam Tamils are not only fighting with the Sinhalese army in many fronts but also fighting the interested parties in the world who wants to prop up Sri Lanka against us. We are fighting for our just rights in the full backing and strength of just our people.
In supports of Eelam Tamil, every single day our brethrens in Tamil Nadu raising their concerns state wide. In India, not only in Tamil Nadu, many other states people are raising their concerns for the Eelam Tamils and their struggle for freedom. Changing mode in the world stage in support of our struggle energizes us to continue to fight for our just rights, the LTTE political leader said.
Year 2008 in a glance -LTTE
Year 2008 in a glance
http://www.ltteps.org/?view=2314&folder=2
1. Sri Lanka terminates the 2002 ceasefire agreement
On 3 January Sri Lankan announced the termination of the six year ceasefire brokered by Norway. Norway issues a press statement regretting the decision.
2.Yet another massacre of school children
On 29 January, soon after the Sri Lankan Government announced its termination of the 2002 ceasefire, it launched its 2008-Genocide with a massive claymore attack on a school bus killing thirteen children and seven adults including a school principal.
3. Books of note released
In March, Two books illuminating another aspect of the Tamil genocide, the deliberate and well planned changes to the demography of the Tamil homeland, were released.
4. Human rights defenders killed in March and April
Two leading human rights activists, TNA Member of Parliament, Kiddinan Sivanesan, and NESoHR Chairperson, Rev Fr Karunaratnam, were assaninated in March and April respectively by claymore attacks.
5. Brigadier Balraj passes away
On 20 May, Brigadier Balraj, passed away following a heart attack. Tamil Eelam nation mourned the loss of one of its brave and able son.
6.Sri Lanka evicted from UN Human Rights Council
On 23 May, despite hard lobbying by Sri Lanka, it lost its battle to remain in the UN Human Rights Council due to its appalling human rights record.
7. UN and other INGOs evicted
Having created a massive human catastrophe in Vanni by targeted shelling of civilians, forcing village after village to displace, on 11 September, Sri Lanka evicted UN and other international humanitarian agencies that was taking care of the desperate IDPs.
8. Tamil Nadu protests genocide
On 24 October, Tamilnadu protested the genocide in Sri Lanka with a 60 Kilometers long human chain under pouring rain.
9. Cyclone Nisha and flooding
Cyclone Nisha produced the heaviest floods in Vanni and Jaffna, further worsening the IDP crisis in Vanni.
10.Sri Lanka in “Genocide Red Alert” list
On 8 December, a group, “Genocide Prevention Task Force”, headed by former Secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, submitted its report to the US president elect and also published a list of countries where genocide and other mass atrocities are underway or risk breaking out. Sri Lanka is one of the eight “red alert” countries.
01 January 2009
http://www.ltteps.org/?view=2314&folder=2
1. Sri Lanka terminates the 2002 ceasefire agreement
On 3 January Sri Lankan announced the termination of the six year ceasefire brokered by Norway. Norway issues a press statement regretting the decision.
2.Yet another massacre of school children
On 29 January, soon after the Sri Lankan Government announced its termination of the 2002 ceasefire, it launched its 2008-Genocide with a massive claymore attack on a school bus killing thirteen children and seven adults including a school principal.
3. Books of note released
In March, Two books illuminating another aspect of the Tamil genocide, the deliberate and well planned changes to the demography of the Tamil homeland, were released.
4. Human rights defenders killed in March and April
Two leading human rights activists, TNA Member of Parliament, Kiddinan Sivanesan, and NESoHR Chairperson, Rev Fr Karunaratnam, were assaninated in March and April respectively by claymore attacks.
5. Brigadier Balraj passes away
On 20 May, Brigadier Balraj, passed away following a heart attack. Tamil Eelam nation mourned the loss of one of its brave and able son.
6.Sri Lanka evicted from UN Human Rights Council
On 23 May, despite hard lobbying by Sri Lanka, it lost its battle to remain in the UN Human Rights Council due to its appalling human rights record.
7. UN and other INGOs evicted
Having created a massive human catastrophe in Vanni by targeted shelling of civilians, forcing village after village to displace, on 11 September, Sri Lanka evicted UN and other international humanitarian agencies that was taking care of the desperate IDPs.
8. Tamil Nadu protests genocide
On 24 October, Tamilnadu protested the genocide in Sri Lanka with a 60 Kilometers long human chain under pouring rain.
9. Cyclone Nisha and flooding
Cyclone Nisha produced the heaviest floods in Vanni and Jaffna, further worsening the IDP crisis in Vanni.
10.Sri Lanka in “Genocide Red Alert” list
On 8 December, a group, “Genocide Prevention Task Force”, headed by former Secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, submitted its report to the US president elect and also published a list of countries where genocide and other mass atrocities are underway or risk breaking out. Sri Lanka is one of the eight “red alert” countries.
01 January 2009
S.Lanka shares end 2008 down more than 40 pct
S.Lanka shares end 2008 down more than 40 pct
Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:48pm GMT
COLOMBO, Dec 31 (Reuters) - Sri Lankan shares ended the year more than 40
percent down but gained slightly during the last trading session of 2008 on
Wednesday, and the rupee inched up in limited trade as a state bank quoted
firmer rates.
The Colombo All Share index .CSE gained 1.25 percent on Wednesday, up
18.49 points to 1,503.02. The rupee edged up to 112.90/113.10 per dollar
from Tuesday's 113.10/113.20. It has fallen 3.85 percent in the past 12 months
and hit a record low of 113.80/114.00 on Monday.
The central bank has allowed the rupee to depreciate on a gradual and
limited basis since Oct. 30, after preventing a maximum possible appreciation of
around 9 percent in the first half of the year due to high dollar inflows into
the island nation.
"There was dull trade and a state bank, which usually represents the central
bank, bought dollars at 113.00 level, directing the market," said one currency
dealer.
The central bank on Tuesday said the government's exposure to foreign
exchange risk has significantly declined, but analysts said the state was
desperate for dollars after spending a third of its reserves to protect the
rupee. [nLU274573]
The Columba All Share index lost 40.8 percent in the year due to poor
earnings, high borrowing costs, global economic woes as well as a civil war
between the Sri Lankan state and Tamil Tiger rebels, but has fared better than
some of its regional rivals. [nSP235321].
"The market was a little optimistic after the government's stimulus package
and confidence was restored by the central bank on a stability issue in a listed
bank," said Shivantha Meepage, a research analyst at HNB Stockbrokers.
The central bank on Monday said it had decided to dissolve Seylan Bank's
SEYB.CM board of directors with immediate effect to maintain the stability of
the financial system. The move followed a liquidity crunch prompted by a credit
card scandal at non-listed Golden Key Credit Card Company [nCOL416535].
Ceylinco Insurance CINS.CM, a company belonging to the same parent group
of Seylan Bank, Ceylinco Consolidated, rose 6.86 percent to 187 rupees, while
shares in Seylan Bank itself jumped 40.74 percent to 28.50 rupees.
Ceylinco Consolidated reported a credit card scandal last week in one of its
non-listed companies. Analysts estimate the amount involved to be around 26
billion rupees ($228.8 million).
Market heavyweight and the country's No.1 fixed-line phone operator, Sri
Lanka Telecom SLTL.CM, rose 3.33 percent to 31 rupees, as calculated on a
weighted average.
Sri Lanka unveiled a 16 billion rupee stimulus package to cushion the
economy from the reverberations of the global economic crisis, officials said on
Wednesday. [nCOL385873]
Market turnover was 208.5 million rupees, more than half of last year's
daily average of 400 million rupees. The bourse officials said the daily market
turnover for 2008 was 464 million rupees.
Foreign inflows into the bourse have risen over 25 percent to a record high
of 14 billion rupees this year, officials said.
Sri Lanka's annual inflation measured by consumer prices fell to an 18-month
low of 14.4 percent in December, falling sixth straight month after hitting a
record high in June, the government said on Wednesday.
The central bank governor said on Wednesday that interest rates will decline
next year alongside falling inflation, while growth should hold at 6 percent
with the help of government efforts to prop up the economy. [nCOL36357].
The interbank lending rate or call money rate CLIBOR edged up to 13.294
percent from Tuesday's 13.124 percent.
Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:48pm GMT
COLOMBO, Dec 31 (Reuters) - Sri Lankan shares ended the year more than 40
percent down but gained slightly during the last trading session of 2008 on
Wednesday, and the rupee inched up in limited trade as a state bank quoted
firmer rates.
The Colombo All Share index .CSE gained 1.25 percent on Wednesday, up
18.49 points to 1,503.02. The rupee
from Tuesday's 113.10/113.20. It has fallen 3.85 percent in the past 12 months
and hit a record low of 113.80/114.00 on Monday.
The central bank has allowed the rupee to depreciate on a gradual and
limited basis since Oct. 30, after preventing a maximum possible appreciation of
around 9 percent in the first half of the year due to high dollar inflows into
the island nation.
"There was dull trade and a state bank, which usually represents the central
bank, bought dollars at 113.00 level, directing the market," said one currency
dealer.
The central bank on Tuesday said the government's exposure to foreign
exchange risk has significantly declined, but analysts said the state was
desperate for dollars after spending a third of its reserves to protect the
rupee. [nLU274573]
The Columba All Share index lost 40.8 percent in the year due to poor
earnings, high borrowing costs, global economic woes as well as a civil war
between the Sri Lankan state and Tamil Tiger rebels, but has fared better than
some of its regional rivals. [nSP235321].
"The market was a little optimistic after the government's stimulus package
and confidence was restored by the central bank on a stability issue in a listed
bank," said Shivantha Meepage, a research analyst at HNB Stockbrokers.
The central bank on Monday said it had decided to dissolve Seylan Bank's
SEYB.CM board of directors with immediate effect to maintain the stability of
the financial system. The move followed a liquidity crunch prompted by a credit
card scandal at non-listed Golden Key Credit Card Company [nCOL416535].
Ceylinco Insurance CINS.CM, a company belonging to the same parent group
of Seylan Bank, Ceylinco Consolidated, rose 6.86 percent to 187 rupees, while
shares in Seylan Bank itself jumped 40.74 percent to 28.50 rupees.
Ceylinco Consolidated reported a credit card scandal last week in one of its
non-listed companies. Analysts estimate the amount involved to be around 26
billion rupees ($228.8 million).
Market heavyweight and the country's No.1 fixed-line phone operator, Sri
Lanka Telecom SLTL.CM, rose 3.33 percent to 31 rupees, as calculated on a
weighted average.
Sri Lanka unveiled a 16 billion rupee stimulus package to cushion the
economy from the reverberations of the global economic crisis, officials said on
Wednesday. [nCOL385873]
Market turnover was 208.5 million rupees, more than half of last year's
daily average of 400 million rupees. The bourse officials said the daily market
turnover for 2008 was 464 million rupees.
Foreign inflows into the bourse have risen over 25 percent to a record high
of 14 billion rupees this year, officials said.
Sri Lanka's annual inflation measured by consumer prices fell to an 18-month
low of 14.4 percent in December, falling sixth straight month after hitting a
record high in June, the government said on Wednesday.
The central bank governor said on Wednesday that interest rates will decline
next year alongside falling inflation, while growth should hold at 6 percent
with the help of government efforts to prop up the economy. [nCOL36357].
The interbank lending rate or call money rate CLIBOR edged up to 13.294
percent from Tuesday's 13.124 percent.
"three thousand have died in combat during 2008 and nine thousand wounded". -FORMER FM -BBC
War is a sacrifice for political gain-Mangala
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2008/12/081231_mangala.shtml
Parliamentarian Mangala Samaraweera said that the government is engaged in sacrificing the lives of security forcers for political gain.
In a statement issued this week, Mangala Samaraweera claimed that, "three thousand soldiers have died in combat during 2008 and further nine thousand had been wounded".
When asked about the source of the figures, he told the BBC, "We get the information from within the military. Government is hiding the damage. even the Prime Minister had stopped giving casualty figures in parliament as part of the monthly emergency debate".
He also said that lives of soldiers are being sacrificed because the defence secretary and army commander do not have an understanding or strategy to conduct the war.
political settlement
He said that although the Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga administration was forced in to war but never pushed Tamil civilians towards the Tamil Tigers.
“Alongside fighting the war we seriously discussed a political settlement” Said Samaraweera.
Responding to a question Samaraweera said that while in the Kumaratunga cabinet he never opposed the ceasefire agreement between the LTTE and Ranil Wickramasinha administration but only questioned certain aspects of the agreement.
“President Kumaranatunga took over three ministries and there could be criticisms regarding that” Said Samaraweera"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2008/12/081231_mangala.shtml
Parliamentarian Mangala Samaraweera said that the government is engaged in sacrificing the lives of security forcers for political gain.
In a statement issued this week, Mangala Samaraweera claimed that, "three thousand soldiers have died in combat during 2008 and further nine thousand had been wounded".
When asked about the source of the figures, he told the BBC, "We get the information from within the military. Government is hiding the damage. even the Prime Minister had stopped giving casualty figures in parliament as part of the monthly emergency debate".
He also said that lives of soldiers are being sacrificed because the defence secretary and army commander do not have an understanding or strategy to conduct the war.
political settlement
He said that although the Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga administration was forced in to war but never pushed Tamil civilians towards the Tamil Tigers.
“Alongside fighting the war we seriously discussed a political settlement” Said Samaraweera.
Responding to a question Samaraweera said that while in the Kumaratunga cabinet he never opposed the ceasefire agreement between the LTTE and Ranil Wickramasinha administration but only questioned certain aspects of the agreement.
“President Kumaranatunga took over three ministries and there could be criticisms regarding that” Said Samaraweera"
5 civilians killed, 16 wounded in air strikes, hospital reports blood shortage
5 civilians killed, 16 wounded in air strikes, hospital reports blood shortage
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=27874 (FOR GRAPHIC PICTURES).
[TamilNet, Wednesday, 31 December 2008, 04:26 GMT]
Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) bombers attacked a civilian settlement near Murugananda school in Murasumoaddai on Paranthan - Mullaiththeevu Road killing two females of a family and a male on the spot. Another man, who was seriously wounded, succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. 16 civilians, including a couple, were wounded. The attack has targeted three civilian settlements in Murasumoaddai Wednesday around 8:00 a.m. The indiscriminate bombardment on fleeing civilians, Internally Displaced Person's huts, close to the ICRC Karaichchi branch office, a school, temple and agricultural lands aims at instilling fear at the minds of the civilians in Vanni, observers said.
A motorcyclist escaped with wounds, but his bike was thrown 70 meters away from the road.
Medical Superintendent of Vanni's main hospital at Tharmapuram, Dr. S. Sathiyamoorthy, has placed the hospital and the surrounding area on red alert for blood shortage as Sri Lanka Army (SLA) launched artillery attack on the village after the carnage by the SLAF.
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A patient seriously wounded in his head, being rushed to the hospital at Tharmapuram by volunteers
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A civilian volunteer bringing a seriously wounded mother
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A wounded female being rushed to hospital
Sarath Fonseka on civilian casualties
Sri Lanka Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, in an interview to Business Today on December 11, 2008, said: "We have been exemplary in adhering to the policy of Zero Damage to Civilians." According Fonseka, there were only 24 civilians confirmed killed in the two and a half year war.
The Sri Lankan air strike targeted civilian houses behind Murugananda school, two settlements of refugees, one at Chelliah Shop Junction and the other behind Cheaththukka'ndi Amman temple at Murasumoaddai. A few hours later, the SLAF fighter jets returned to the same village and dropped bombs while a cow herder, was moving away with his cows from Paranthan to his native village, Tharmapuram. Two others were also wounded in the second bombardment.
The cow herder wounded in the second bombardment was identified as Mayalaku Vijayaratnam, 24. The other two civilians wounded were Nadarasa Thavanesan, 36, and Columbus, 24,
Meanwhile, a 29-year-old male, T. Sasikaran, was seriously injured when Sri Lanka Army (SLA) fired artillery shells targeting settlements in 2nd Mile Post. Mr. Sasikaran wounded in his head was rushed to hospital in unconscious state and is at the stage of coma, according to the latest update from the medical sources Wednesday night.
24-year-old Juda Margarat Aseervatham, 55-year-old Asservaatham Maryamma and Markandu Sivanandan were killed on the spot.
52-year-old Chandrabose and 37-year-old Kannan, two of the wounded who were admitted at Tharmapuram hospital, succumbed to their injuries at the Intensive Care Unit.
The wounded civilians in the first bombardment on three localities were identified as I. Nirmalan, 15, S. Ragulan, 21, Arumaiththurai Jesinald, 26, Ramachandran Kumanan, 30, Selvarajah Kulendran, 33, K. Jeyasri, 38, Somasundaram Chandrakumar, 43, Annakkodi Chandramary, 45, Vellaichamy Annakkodi, 49, S. Balasundaram, 51, Palaniayappan Subramaniyam, 52, Ranjithamalar, 58, and Saravana Bavananthan, 62.
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
An elderly civilian wounded in SLAF bombardment
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Medical staff attending the wounded at Tharmapuram hospital
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
SLAF bombardment close to the Karaichchi branch office of the ICRC. A cow killed in the air strike is lying in front of the office with ICRC flags and markings.
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A heavily loaded land master is passing the site bombed by SLAF. Many refugees were fleeing from SLA shelling in Paranthan area amid SLAF bombardment.
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Bombed locality at Murasumoaddai
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A house damaged in SLAF bombardment
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A crater near an IDP hut
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Another crater on the side of the Paranthan Road
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A motorbike hit by bomb shrapnels
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Indiscriminate bombardment by SLAF on Murasumoaddai
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
SLAF bombs also hit agricultural lands
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A crater alongside Paranthan Mullaiththeevu Road
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Civilians fleeing SLA shellilng
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A wounded civilian at Tharmapuram hospital
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Tharmapuram hospital received around 20 wounded from SLAF air strikes and SLA shelling on Wednesday
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A mother killed in SLAF bombardment
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A male killed in SLAF bombardment in Murasumoaddai
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Another man killed on the spot at Murasumoaddai in the indiscriminate bombardment on civlians
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A woman killed on the spot
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=27874 (FOR GRAPHIC PICTURES).
[TamilNet, Wednesday, 31 December 2008, 04:26 GMT]
Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) bombers attacked a civilian settlement near Murugananda school in Murasumoaddai on Paranthan - Mullaiththeevu Road killing two females of a family and a male on the spot. Another man, who was seriously wounded, succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. 16 civilians, including a couple, were wounded. The attack has targeted three civilian settlements in Murasumoaddai Wednesday around 8:00 a.m. The indiscriminate bombardment on fleeing civilians, Internally Displaced Person's huts, close to the ICRC Karaichchi branch office, a school, temple and agricultural lands aims at instilling fear at the minds of the civilians in Vanni, observers said.
A motorcyclist escaped with wounds, but his bike was thrown 70 meters away from the road.
Medical Superintendent of Vanni's main hospital at Tharmapuram, Dr. S. Sathiyamoorthy, has placed the hospital and the surrounding area on red alert for blood shortage as Sri Lanka Army (SLA) launched artillery attack on the village after the carnage by the SLAF.
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A patient seriously wounded in his head, being rushed to the hospital at Tharmapuram by volunteers
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A civilian volunteer bringing a seriously wounded mother
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A wounded female being rushed to hospital
Sarath Fonseka on civilian casualties
Sri Lanka Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, in an interview to Business Today on December 11, 2008, said: "We have been exemplary in adhering to the policy of Zero Damage to Civilians." According Fonseka, there were only 24 civilians confirmed killed in the two and a half year war.
The Sri Lankan air strike targeted civilian houses behind Murugananda school, two settlements of refugees, one at Chelliah Shop Junction and the other behind Cheaththukka'ndi Amman temple at Murasumoaddai. A few hours later, the SLAF fighter jets returned to the same village and dropped bombs while a cow herder, was moving away with his cows from Paranthan to his native village, Tharmapuram. Two others were also wounded in the second bombardment.
The cow herder wounded in the second bombardment was identified as Mayalaku Vijayaratnam, 24. The other two civilians wounded were Nadarasa Thavanesan, 36, and Columbus, 24,
Meanwhile, a 29-year-old male, T. Sasikaran, was seriously injured when Sri Lanka Army (SLA) fired artillery shells targeting settlements in 2nd Mile Post. Mr. Sasikaran wounded in his head was rushed to hospital in unconscious state and is at the stage of coma, according to the latest update from the medical sources Wednesday night.
24-year-old Juda Margarat Aseervatham, 55-year-old Asservaatham Maryamma and Markandu Sivanandan were killed on the spot.
52-year-old Chandrabose and 37-year-old Kannan, two of the wounded who were admitted at Tharmapuram hospital, succumbed to their injuries at the Intensive Care Unit.
The wounded civilians in the first bombardment on three localities were identified as I. Nirmalan, 15, S. Ragulan, 21, Arumaiththurai Jesinald, 26, Ramachandran Kumanan, 30, Selvarajah Kulendran, 33, K. Jeyasri, 38, Somasundaram Chandrakumar, 43, Annakkodi Chandramary, 45, Vellaichamy Annakkodi, 49, S. Balasundaram, 51, Palaniayappan Subramaniyam, 52, Ranjithamalar, 58, and Saravana Bavananthan, 62.
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
An elderly civilian wounded in SLAF bombardment
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Medical staff attending the wounded at Tharmapuram hospital
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
SLAF bombardment close to the Karaichchi branch office of the ICRC. A cow killed in the air strike is lying in front of the office with ICRC flags and markings.
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A heavily loaded land master is passing the site bombed by SLAF. Many refugees were fleeing from SLA shelling in Paranthan area amid SLAF bombardment.
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Bombed locality at Murasumoaddai
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A house damaged in SLAF bombardment
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A crater near an IDP hut
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Another crater on the side of the Paranthan Road
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A motorbike hit by bomb shrapnels
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Indiscriminate bombardment by SLAF on Murasumoaddai
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
SLAF bombs also hit agricultural lands
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A crater alongside Paranthan Mullaiththeevu Road
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Civilians fleeing SLA shellilng
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A wounded civilian at Tharmapuram hospital
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Tharmapuram hospital received around 20 wounded from SLAF air strikes and SLA shelling on Wednesday
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A mother killed in SLAF bombardment
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A male killed in SLAF bombardment in Murasumoaddai
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
Another man killed on the spot at Murasumoaddai in the indiscriminate bombardment on civlians
SLAF bombardment on Murasumoaddai on 31.12.2008
A woman killed on the spot
My comments grossly distorted by Govt: Archbishop
My comments grossly distorted by Govt: Archbishop
The Archbishop of Colombo Rt. Rev. Oswald Gomis lamented yesterday that the Defence Ministry and the Government Information Department had grossly distorted and interpreted a statement he made.
The Archbishop made these observations in a statement issued yesterday relating to an interview he had given to the Vatican Radio.
The Archbishop told The Sunday Times he had informed the Vatican through Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a top official in the Vatican, of what he had really said at the interview. He said Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith told him he himself (Archbishop Ranjith) had been a victim of such distortion by Government agencies.
Rt. Rev. Oswald Gomis
When Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith visited Sri Lanka recently, he had a meeting with President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the President had explained the Government’s policy relating to the ethnic conflict and the war. The Archbishop had made no comment but the President’s media officials later issued a statement claiming the Archbishop had endorsed the Government’s policies. This had compelled Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith to refute the Government statement.
Archbishop Gomis in the clarification issued yesterday said:
The response I gave to some questions addressed to me by a reporter of Vatican Radio have been completely distorted in a news bulletin released by “The Official Government News portal of Sri Lanka” www.news.lk dated 24.07.2008 and quoted by several other news agencies and websites, adding a completely misleading title “Military defeat of LTTE precondition for peace – Archbishop Oswald Gomis”
In summary, the Vatican radio reporter asked me whether the war had escalated in Sri Lanka and whether there were any prospects of peace.
In reply I admitted that the war had escalated and said that there were many who today believed that war was the only solution to the conflict because peace talks have so far not been successful and a war mentality is in vogue. Accordingly, I said the belief of many today was- “first of all you must crush them (the LTTE) if you want to have a peaceful solution. That’s what most of the people are thinking that has become a common opinion” and added very clearly “not that we share it” (this opinion).
This portion in emphasis also appears quoted in the very bulletin aforementioned attributed to me. Therefore, how could the statement “Military defeat of LTTE pre-condition for peace” be attributed to me in the bulletin? It is an obvious contradiction and distortion. On the other hand, as reported in the same news bulletin, I mentioned- “the ideal would be if they could come to terms….” which meant that a negotiated political settlement would be the best in my opinion.
On the matter of peace talks I said that according to news reports the Government had announced it was ready to talk provided the LTTE laid down arms; but the LTTE had responded that it was not ready to do so. “So it’s a stalemate there”. I further added that in these circumstances there were no hopes of peace talks in the immediate future. I trust the above makes my position clear. The news headline is a complete distortion of my responses to the Vatican Radio reporter, and is grossly misleading.
Meanwhile Government Information Director Anusha Pelpita told The Sunday Times that soon after he heard about the Archbishop’s concern about the particular item, he had removed the item from the website.
The Archbishop of Colombo Rt. Rev. Oswald Gomis lamented yesterday that the Defence Ministry and the Government Information Department had grossly distorted and interpreted a statement he made.
The Archbishop made these observations in a statement issued yesterday relating to an interview he had given to the Vatican Radio.
The Archbishop told The Sunday Times he had informed the Vatican through Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a top official in the Vatican, of what he had really said at the interview. He said Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith told him he himself (Archbishop Ranjith) had been a victim of such distortion by Government agencies.
Rt. Rev. Oswald Gomis
When Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith visited Sri Lanka recently, he had a meeting with President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the President had explained the Government’s policy relating to the ethnic conflict and the war. The Archbishop had made no comment but the President’s media officials later issued a statement claiming the Archbishop had endorsed the Government’s policies. This had compelled Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith to refute the Government statement.
Archbishop Gomis in the clarification issued yesterday said:
The response I gave to some questions addressed to me by a reporter of Vatican Radio have been completely distorted in a news bulletin released by “The Official Government News portal of Sri Lanka” www.news.lk dated 24.07.2008 and quoted by several other news agencies and websites, adding a completely misleading title “Military defeat of LTTE precondition for peace – Archbishop Oswald Gomis”
In summary, the Vatican radio reporter asked me whether the war had escalated in Sri Lanka and whether there were any prospects of peace.
In reply I admitted that the war had escalated and said that there were many who today believed that war was the only solution to the conflict because peace talks have so far not been successful and a war mentality is in vogue. Accordingly, I said the belief of many today was- “first of all you must crush them (the LTTE) if you want to have a peaceful solution. That’s what most of the people are thinking that has become a common opinion” and added very clearly “not that we share it” (this opinion).
This portion in emphasis also appears quoted in the very bulletin aforementioned attributed to me. Therefore, how could the statement “Military defeat of LTTE pre-condition for peace” be attributed to me in the bulletin? It is an obvious contradiction and distortion. On the other hand, as reported in the same news bulletin, I mentioned- “the ideal would be if they could come to terms….” which meant that a negotiated political settlement would be the best in my opinion.
On the matter of peace talks I said that according to news reports the Government had announced it was ready to talk provided the LTTE laid down arms; but the LTTE had responded that it was not ready to do so. “So it’s a stalemate there”. I further added that in these circumstances there were no hopes of peace talks in the immediate future. I trust the above makes my position clear. The news headline is a complete distortion of my responses to the Vatican Radio reporter, and is grossly misleading.
Meanwhile Government Information Director Anusha Pelpita told The Sunday Times that soon after he heard about the Archbishop’s concern about the particular item, he had removed the item from the website.
4 civilians killed, 14 wounded in air strike, hospital reports blood shortage
4 civilians killed, 14 wounded in air strike, hospital reports blood shortage
[TamilNet, Wednesday, 31 December 2008, 04:26 GMT]
Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) bombers attacked a civilian settlement near Murugananda school in Murasumoaddai on Paranthan - Mullaiththeevu Road killing two females of a family and a male on the spot. Another man, who was seriously wounded, succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. 14 civilians, including a couple, were wounded. The attack has targeted three civilian settlements in Murasumoaddai Wednesday around 8:00 a.m. Meanwhile, Medical Superintendent of Vanni's main hospital at Tharmapuram, Dr. S. Sathiyamoorthy, has placed the hospital and the surrounding area on red alert for blood shortage as Sri Lanka Army (SLA) launched artillery attack on the village after the carnage by the SLAF.
The Sri Lankan air strike targeted civilian houses behind Murugananda school, two settlements of refugees, one at Chelliah Shop Junction and the other behind Cheaththukka'ndi Amman temple at Murasumoaddai.
24-year-old Juda Margarat Aseervatham, 55-year-old Asservaatham Maryamma and Markandu Sivanandan were killed on the spot.
52-year-old Chandrabose, one of the 14 wounded who were admitted at Tharmapuram hospital, succumbed to his injuries at the Intensive Care Unit.
The wounded were identified as I. Nirmalan, 15, S. Ragulan, 21, Arumaiththurai Jesinald, 26, Ramachandran Kumanan, 30, Selvarajah Kulendran, 33, K. Jeyasri, 38, Somasundaram Chandrakumar, 43, Annakkodi Chandramary, 45, Vellaichamy Annakkodi, 49, S. Balasundaram, 51, Palaniayappan Subramaniyam, 52, Ranjithamalar, 58, and Saravana Bavananthan, 62.
[TamilNet, Wednesday, 31 December 2008, 04:26 GMT]
Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) bombers attacked a civilian settlement near Murugananda school in Murasumoaddai on Paranthan - Mullaiththeevu Road killing two females of a family and a male on the spot. Another man, who was seriously wounded, succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. 14 civilians, including a couple, were wounded. The attack has targeted three civilian settlements in Murasumoaddai Wednesday around 8:00 a.m. Meanwhile, Medical Superintendent of Vanni's main hospital at Tharmapuram, Dr. S. Sathiyamoorthy, has placed the hospital and the surrounding area on red alert for blood shortage as Sri Lanka Army (SLA) launched artillery attack on the village after the carnage by the SLAF.
The Sri Lankan air strike targeted civilian houses behind Murugananda school, two settlements of refugees, one at Chelliah Shop Junction and the other behind Cheaththukka'ndi Amman temple at Murasumoaddai.
24-year-old Juda Margarat Aseervatham, 55-year-old Asservaatham Maryamma and Markandu Sivanandan were killed on the spot.
52-year-old Chandrabose, one of the 14 wounded who were admitted at Tharmapuram hospital, succumbed to his injuries at the Intensive Care Unit.
The wounded were identified as I. Nirmalan, 15, S. Ragulan, 21, Arumaiththurai Jesinald, 26, Ramachandran Kumanan, 30, Selvarajah Kulendran, 33, K. Jeyasri, 38, Somasundaram Chandrakumar, 43, Annakkodi Chandramary, 45, Vellaichamy Annakkodi, 49, S. Balasundaram, 51, Palaniayappan Subramaniyam, 52, Ranjithamalar, 58, and Saravana Bavananthan, 62.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Editorial from The Morning Leader: Sri Lanka within Indo-Pak rivalry
Sri Lanka within Indo-Pak rivalry
A Press Trust of India report on Monday said that the ruling Congress Party of India had assured Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi that the Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee would soon visit Sri Lanka to discuss the ‘Tamil Issue.’ Karunanidhi has been pressurising the Central Government of India to intervene in the Sri Lankan problem and pressurise the Sri Lanka government to call off the military offensives in the Wanni jungles and instead find a political solution.
It is an open secret that Karunanidhi’s interests are those of the LTTE and not so much the interests of Tamil civilians. What Mukherjee — whose country was the first to proscribe the LTTE as a terrorist organisation — can do to persuade the Rajapakse government is to be seen.
The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister had been pressurising New Delhi to make this move much before the Mumbai bombings took place. The Mumbai attack that shook the Indian sub-continent upset Karunanidhi’s agenda but now as the dust settles over Mumbai, he is back at work.
Even if a visit by Mukherjee materialises, there will be nothing very much he can do about this 25-year-old conflict other than to issue statements/condemnations/recriminations against Sri Lanka and/or the LTTE while calling for a political solution. Nonetheless, it will be prudent for Sri Lanka not to antagonise the Indian ruling party now on tenterhooks with a general election impending in the first six months of the New Year and rising public anger against its impotence against terrorist attacks. Tamil Nadu support will be a crucial factor if the Congress Party is to form the next government which would inevitably have to be a political coalition.
While Sri Lanka looking back on history will see the grim irony of this attempted Indian intervention, it will be prudent not to antagonise the ruling Congress Party at this juncture. The Mumbai blasts took place at the iconic Gateway to India. It was no doubt a national embarrassment and tragedy. Before that there had been blasts at Bangalore, Jaipur, Ahamedabad, Lucknow, Hyderabad, and blasts on the Samhauta Express bound from Delhi to Lahore. And the government of Sonia Gandhi was in the dock with no answer to curb these terrorist attacks.
The knee-jerk reaction of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a politician not normally given to histrionics, was to point his finger at Pakistan — just one to two hours after the blasts — with no evidence of Pakistani involvement. Even last week Pakistan’s leaders were claiming that no concrete evidence of Pakistani involvement had been presented to them. India on the other hand insists sufficient evidence was given to Pakistan with the US too echoing similar sentiments.
The fact that ‘so called’ non state actors are operating from Pakistani soil has been claimed even by the United States. The tragedy is that the Pakistani government is as helpless in curbing terrorism within its borders as India does in curbing terrorism, foreign grown or home grown. Benazir Bhutto, prime minister twice and who was likely to be elected for the third time, was assassinated by Pakistani terrorists, and her husband Asif Zardari can do very little about it. India, America, Britain, European countries eager to do business with India are calling upon Pakistan to take action on those ‘non state actors,’ operating from Pakistani soil against India, a tough proposition when Pakistani leaders can’t protect themselves from their terrorists. It does appear that terrorists are posing a major challenge to all democratically elected governments in South Asia.
The 15th SAARC Summit held in Colombo presided over by our own President Mahinda Rajapakse produced a ringing declaration against terrorism in all its forms. The much hailed Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) envisage closer cooperation between the security forces of member countries to arrest and hand over those engaged in criminal and terrorist activities.
The treaty’s objective was to strengthen the two SAARC Conventions on Terrorism and Drug Trafficking signed much earlier. Could anyone tell us what happened to these much hailed pow wows on terrorism, particularly the last SAARC Summit which the Sri Lanka government spent billions of rupees including purchase of bullet proof cars for the visiting dignitaries?
Fortunately after a month of fiery Indo-Pak rhetoric less heat is now being generated. This is important for Sri Lanka which tends to get caught in the cross-fire of Indo-Pakistan politics. Before the Karunanidhi intervention India’s National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan strongly warned Sri Lanka against purchases of armaments from Pakistan and China. During the Indira Gandhi regime arms purchases from Pakistan were strongly objected to by India. This Indian stance comes in the wake of the vacillating position taken by India on supply of arms to Sri Lanka.
During the last Elephant Pass debacle when Pirapaharan was about to retake the Jaffna peninsula, India refused any form of military assistance save ‘humanitarian’ assistance while Pakistan flew out the required armaments including multi barrel rocket launchers that saved Sri Lanka being truncated in to two countries. The gratitude of this country for the immense contributions made by Pakistan to preserve its unity and integrity has not been sufficiently expressed.
President Mahinda Rajapakse’s new ventures with the Chinese such as on the construction of thermal power generating plants and particularly the Hambantota Harbour are not being favourably looked on by India and even the West. The Chinese built Hambantota harbour will be spitting distance from the main shipping trade route from West to east is not to the liking of New Delhi’s strategic thinkers. Nonetheless under the Ranil Wickremesinghe government the Trincomalee Oil Tank Farm was given to the Indians which is also considered vital for the control of sea lanes from West to East.
As the two Asian giants expand their spheres of influence in the region many countries including Sri Lanka will be caught up in the conflicts of interest of the two powers. Little Lanka in these circumstances should heed the advice given to people of little consequence: Stand not too close to the rich man lest he grabs thee and not too far away lest he forgets thee.
A Press Trust of India report on Monday said that the ruling Congress Party of India had assured Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi that the Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee would soon visit Sri Lanka to discuss the ‘Tamil Issue.’ Karunanidhi has been pressurising the Central Government of India to intervene in the Sri Lankan problem and pressurise the Sri Lanka government to call off the military offensives in the Wanni jungles and instead find a political solution.
It is an open secret that Karunanidhi’s interests are those of the LTTE and not so much the interests of Tamil civilians. What Mukherjee — whose country was the first to proscribe the LTTE as a terrorist organisation — can do to persuade the Rajapakse government is to be seen.
The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister had been pressurising New Delhi to make this move much before the Mumbai bombings took place. The Mumbai attack that shook the Indian sub-continent upset Karunanidhi’s agenda but now as the dust settles over Mumbai, he is back at work.
Even if a visit by Mukherjee materialises, there will be nothing very much he can do about this 25-year-old conflict other than to issue statements/condemnations/recriminations against Sri Lanka and/or the LTTE while calling for a political solution. Nonetheless, it will be prudent for Sri Lanka not to antagonise the Indian ruling party now on tenterhooks with a general election impending in the first six months of the New Year and rising public anger against its impotence against terrorist attacks. Tamil Nadu support will be a crucial factor if the Congress Party is to form the next government which would inevitably have to be a political coalition.
While Sri Lanka looking back on history will see the grim irony of this attempted Indian intervention, it will be prudent not to antagonise the ruling Congress Party at this juncture. The Mumbai blasts took place at the iconic Gateway to India. It was no doubt a national embarrassment and tragedy. Before that there had been blasts at Bangalore, Jaipur, Ahamedabad, Lucknow, Hyderabad, and blasts on the Samhauta Express bound from Delhi to Lahore. And the government of Sonia Gandhi was in the dock with no answer to curb these terrorist attacks.
The knee-jerk reaction of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a politician not normally given to histrionics, was to point his finger at Pakistan — just one to two hours after the blasts — with no evidence of Pakistani involvement. Even last week Pakistan’s leaders were claiming that no concrete evidence of Pakistani involvement had been presented to them. India on the other hand insists sufficient evidence was given to Pakistan with the US too echoing similar sentiments.
The fact that ‘so called’ non state actors are operating from Pakistani soil has been claimed even by the United States. The tragedy is that the Pakistani government is as helpless in curbing terrorism within its borders as India does in curbing terrorism, foreign grown or home grown. Benazir Bhutto, prime minister twice and who was likely to be elected for the third time, was assassinated by Pakistani terrorists, and her husband Asif Zardari can do very little about it. India, America, Britain, European countries eager to do business with India are calling upon Pakistan to take action on those ‘non state actors,’ operating from Pakistani soil against India, a tough proposition when Pakistani leaders can’t protect themselves from their terrorists. It does appear that terrorists are posing a major challenge to all democratically elected governments in South Asia.
The 15th SAARC Summit held in Colombo presided over by our own President Mahinda Rajapakse produced a ringing declaration against terrorism in all its forms. The much hailed Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) envisage closer cooperation between the security forces of member countries to arrest and hand over those engaged in criminal and terrorist activities.
The treaty’s objective was to strengthen the two SAARC Conventions on Terrorism and Drug Trafficking signed much earlier. Could anyone tell us what happened to these much hailed pow wows on terrorism, particularly the last SAARC Summit which the Sri Lanka government spent billions of rupees including purchase of bullet proof cars for the visiting dignitaries?
Fortunately after a month of fiery Indo-Pak rhetoric less heat is now being generated. This is important for Sri Lanka which tends to get caught in the cross-fire of Indo-Pakistan politics. Before the Karunanidhi intervention India’s National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan strongly warned Sri Lanka against purchases of armaments from Pakistan and China. During the Indira Gandhi regime arms purchases from Pakistan were strongly objected to by India. This Indian stance comes in the wake of the vacillating position taken by India on supply of arms to Sri Lanka.
During the last Elephant Pass debacle when Pirapaharan was about to retake the Jaffna peninsula, India refused any form of military assistance save ‘humanitarian’ assistance while Pakistan flew out the required armaments including multi barrel rocket launchers that saved Sri Lanka being truncated in to two countries. The gratitude of this country for the immense contributions made by Pakistan to preserve its unity and integrity has not been sufficiently expressed.
President Mahinda Rajapakse’s new ventures with the Chinese such as on the construction of thermal power generating plants and particularly the Hambantota Harbour are not being favourably looked on by India and even the West. The Chinese built Hambantota harbour will be spitting distance from the main shipping trade route from West to east is not to the liking of New Delhi’s strategic thinkers. Nonetheless under the Ranil Wickremesinghe government the Trincomalee Oil Tank Farm was given to the Indians which is also considered vital for the control of sea lanes from West to East.
As the two Asian giants expand their spheres of influence in the region many countries including Sri Lanka will be caught up in the conflicts of interest of the two powers. Little Lanka in these circumstances should heed the advice given to people of little consequence: Stand not too close to the rich man lest he grabs thee and not too far away lest he forgets thee.
Monday, December 29, 2008
31 SLA Killed in Chilawatte in Vanni - Defense Wire:
Monday, December 29, 2008
31 SLA KIA in Chilawatte
31 soldiers were killed in fierce fighting at Chilawatte (Silawatte) in the general areas Mulaitivu on Saturday. 22 of those killed went MIA while the bodies of another 9 were recovered by 59 division troops. So far Tigers have recovered 17 bodies while another few are lying inside a minefield. Casualties to the Tigers is unknown.
A forward operating platoon, comprised of 11GW and 14 VIR troops, met with this unfortunate demise after having successfully crossed an LTTE bund cum ditch. The platoon CO tried to push on further but was met with stiff resistance in an exposed area with a large Villu capable of drowning even a bull. With the 59 less than 5km south, the LTTE bastion of Mulaitivu is now being heavily defended by an LTTE reserve unit reinforced from Muhamalai-Nagarkovil by sea.
In the northwestern flank, troops from the 58 Division are now 2.5km from Paranthan junction. The 57 is progressing steadily, but is taking time due to heavy trappings in the Kilinochchi build-up area. 11 soldiers dies recently when a booby trapped house was razed to the ground.
Meanwhile LTTE has resumed firing heavy volumes of mortars and artillery. Hevay fire was experienced at Chilawatta as well. One LTTE trawler and one ship chartered by the LTTE have unloaded their cargo for two successive days off the Mulaitivu coast. The ship is said to be of Canadian origin and probably owned by the LTTE that had set sail from Indonesia while the trawler had come from south India.
The large vessel has brought mortars and artillery while the trawler has brought in large quantities of medical supplies to treat wounded LTTE cadres as well as torch batteries etc. Powerful anesthetics and antibiotics used in the treatment of gunshot wounds was in short supply for the LTTE until now.
Posted by Defencewire at 9:05 AM 250 comments
31 SLA KIA in Chilawatte
31 soldiers were killed in fierce fighting at Chilawatte (Silawatte) in the general areas Mulaitivu on Saturday. 22 of those killed went MIA while the bodies of another 9 were recovered by 59 division troops. So far Tigers have recovered 17 bodies while another few are lying inside a minefield. Casualties to the Tigers is unknown.
A forward operating platoon, comprised of 11GW and 14 VIR troops, met with this unfortunate demise after having successfully crossed an LTTE bund cum ditch. The platoon CO tried to push on further but was met with stiff resistance in an exposed area with a large Villu capable of drowning even a bull. With the 59 less than 5km south, the LTTE bastion of Mulaitivu is now being heavily defended by an LTTE reserve unit reinforced from Muhamalai-Nagarkovil by sea.
In the northwestern flank, troops from the 58 Division are now 2.5km from Paranthan junction. The 57 is progressing steadily, but is taking time due to heavy trappings in the Kilinochchi build-up area. 11 soldiers dies recently when a booby trapped house was razed to the ground.
Meanwhile LTTE has resumed firing heavy volumes of mortars and artillery. Hevay fire was experienced at Chilawatta as well. One LTTE trawler and one ship chartered by the LTTE have unloaded their cargo for two successive days off the Mulaitivu coast. The ship is said to be of Canadian origin and probably owned by the LTTE that had set sail from Indonesia while the trawler had come from south India.
The large vessel has brought mortars and artillery while the trawler has brought in large quantities of medical supplies to treat wounded LTTE cadres as well as torch batteries etc. Powerful anesthetics and antibiotics used in the treatment of gunshot wounds was in short supply for the LTTE until now.
Posted by Defencewire at 9:05 AM 250 comments
Major General Chandrasiri to retire: Consequences of the extention to Sarath Fonseka as Army Chief.
Major General Chandrasiri to retire
[TamilNet, Monday, 29 December 2008, 13:17 GMT]
Major General Chandrasiri is to retire from his current position as Military Commander of the Northern district effective from 6th of January. Promotion to Sri Lanka's Highest Army post eluded Mr Chandrasiri due to the extensions provided to his friend Lt.Gen. Sarath Fonseka. Maj.Gen. Mendega Samarasinghe is expected to become the new SLA commander for Jaffna.
While military circles speculated that Mr Chandrasiri will be offered a senior post with the Sri Lanka Army (SLA) in Colombo, his retirement comes amidst complicity of the Jaffna SLA in scuttling investigations on more than 800 disappearances, and more than 1000 killings of Tamil men aged 18 to 30, widely known to have been carried out the by his soldiers and colloborating paramilitaries during his two year tenure in Jaffna.
Mr Chandrasiri has invited representatives of International Non-Governmental Organizations, and the local NGOs for a meeting inside the Palali High Security Zone (HSZ) Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 p.m.
Civil sources speculated that the SLA Commander will formally announce his retirement during the meeting and will introduce the new Commander to the meeting attendees.
[TamilNet, Monday, 29 December 2008, 13:17 GMT]
Major General Chandrasiri is to retire from his current position as Military Commander of the Northern district effective from 6th of January. Promotion to Sri Lanka's Highest Army post eluded Mr Chandrasiri due to the extensions provided to his friend Lt.Gen. Sarath Fonseka. Maj.Gen. Mendega Samarasinghe is expected to become the new SLA commander for Jaffna.
While military circles speculated that Mr Chandrasiri will be offered a senior post with the Sri Lanka Army (SLA) in Colombo, his retirement comes amidst complicity of the Jaffna SLA in scuttling investigations on more than 800 disappearances, and more than 1000 killings of Tamil men aged 18 to 30, widely known to have been carried out the by his soldiers and colloborating paramilitaries during his two year tenure in Jaffna.
Mr Chandrasiri has invited representatives of International Non-Governmental Organizations, and the local NGOs for a meeting inside the Palali High Security Zone (HSZ) Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 p.m.
Civil sources speculated that the SLA Commander will formally announce his retirement during the meeting and will introduce the new Commander to the meeting attendees.
Justice Department Official Awards $500,000 Grant to Golf Group
Justice Department Official Awards $500,000 Grant to Golf Group
Former Staffer Tells ABC News Anti-Crime Funds Given to Programs With The "Right" Connections.
By BRIAN ROSS, ANNA SCHECTER, and MURRAY WAAS
June 9, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5033256&page=1
A senior Justice Department official says a $500,000 federal grant to the World Golf Foundation is an appropriate use of money designed to deal with juvenile crime in America.
Does the White House favor social programs based on politics?
"We need something really attractive to engage the gangs and the street kids, golf is the hook," said J. Robert Flores, the administrator of the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
The Justice Department, in a decision by Flores, gave the money to the World Golf Foundation's First Tee program, even though Justice Department staffers had rated the program 47th on a list of 104 applicants. The allegations were first reported earlier this year by the trade journal Youth Today.
"I don't know why people insist on denigrating it, it's a sound program," Flores told ABC News.
Current and former Justice Department employees allege that Flores ignored the staff rankings in favor of programs that had political, social or religious connections to the Bush White House.
Related
PHOTOS: It's Your Money, Gov't Anti-Crime Grants
Teen 'Boot Camps' Again in Spotlight
WATCH: Boot Camp: Tough Love or Abuse?
The honorary chairman of the First Tee program is former President George Bush. On a videotape presentation, the former President Bush praised the program for "serving others and building character and building values."
The director of the golf program, Joe Louis BarrowJr., said the program would help teach inner city children because "golf is a game where values such as honesty, integrity and sportsmanship are essential."
The golf program grant is one of a number of Justice Department grants now coming under scrutiny by a Congressional committee which will hold hearings next week.
A key witness will be a former employee of Flores' office, Scott Peterson, who says the grants were awarded based more on politics than merit.
"This is cronyism, this is waste, fraud and abuse," Peterson told ABC News in an interview aired on Nightline Monday night.
Peterson says the money for the golf program is one of a number of grants awarded to lower-ranked applicants rated in rankings compiled by Justice Department staff members.
"It's a lot of our taxpayer money that's supposed to go for some of our most vulnerable children," Peterson said.
Justice Department Official Awards $500,000 Grant to Golf Group
Former Staffer Tells ABC News Anti-Crime Funds Given to Programs With The "Right" Connections.
FONT SIZE
EMAIL
PRINT
DIGG
SHARE
Peterson says current employees smuggled documents out of the Justice Department so he could provide them to ABC News as proof of the favoritism.
ojjdp
(ABC News Photo Illustration)
More Photos
"More than a half dozen career employees through faxes, FedEx, made sure that you had this stuff," said Peterson.
Many top-rated programs were denied federal grants.
A program to help troubled teens in San Diego, Vista, was ranked number two by the staff out of 202 applicants in its category of prevention and intervention but was turned down for a grant to help deal with inner city teen violence in San Diego.
Another program, designed to train adult guards to deal with teens in custody, also was denied federal money even though it was ranked by the staff number 2 out of 104 in its category.
"What Flores did in this situation is he just stomped on the heads of kids who are very much at risk and in trouble in this country," said Earl Dunlap, who runs the guard training program for the National Partnership for Juvenile Services.
"He determined what the rules were gonna be and who was gonna play and who was gonna be welcome in his club. And everybody else could take a hike," said Dunlap of Flores.
In a telephone interview with ABC News, Flores defended his decisions as in the best overall interest of dealing with teen crime.
He said he was never bound by his staff's recommendations and that he made decisions based "on the overall" need in the country.
Flores was appointed to the position by President Bush six years ago and has overseen about $1.5 billion dollars in grants during that time.
His former employee, Scott Peterson, said Flores holds daily prayer sessions in the Justice Department office and frowns on giving grant money to organizations that provide sex education or condoms to teenagers.
Instead, said Peterson, Flores favors programs that promote sexual abstinence.
A Washington, D.C. program, Best Friends, that promotes abstinences was awarded $1.1 million by Flores even though it ranked 53rd on a list of 104 applicants.
Justice Department Official Awards $500,000 Grant to Golf Group
Former Staffer Tells ABC News Anti-Crime Funds Given to Programs With The "Right" Connections.
Best Friends is run by Elayne Bennett, the wife of Bill Bennett, a former Republican cabinet member and now political commentator.
"We're really about positive friendships," she told ABC News at a recent charity gala that included many of Washington's GOP elite. "A good, solid friendship is a beautiful thing," she said.
Murray Waas is a Washington-based investigative reporter who primarily covers national security and law enforcement issues. He is a contributing editor to the National Journal and has also written for the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe and other newspapers and magazines.
Former Staffer Tells ABC News Anti-Crime Funds Given to Programs With The "Right" Connections.
By BRIAN ROSS, ANNA SCHECTER, and MURRAY WAAS
June 9, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5033256&page=1
A senior Justice Department official says a $500,000 federal grant to the World Golf Foundation is an appropriate use of money designed to deal with juvenile crime in America.
Does the White House favor social programs based on politics?
"We need something really attractive to engage the gangs and the street kids, golf is the hook," said J. Robert Flores, the administrator of the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
The Justice Department, in a decision by Flores, gave the money to the World Golf Foundation's First Tee program, even though Justice Department staffers had rated the program 47th on a list of 104 applicants. The allegations were first reported earlier this year by the trade journal Youth Today.
"I don't know why people insist on denigrating it, it's a sound program," Flores told ABC News.
Current and former Justice Department employees allege that Flores ignored the staff rankings in favor of programs that had political, social or religious connections to the Bush White House.
Related
PHOTOS: It's Your Money, Gov't Anti-Crime Grants
Teen 'Boot Camps' Again in Spotlight
WATCH: Boot Camp: Tough Love or Abuse?
The honorary chairman of the First Tee program is former President George Bush. On a videotape presentation, the former President Bush praised the program for "serving others and building character and building values."
The director of the golf program, Joe Louis BarrowJr., said the program would help teach inner city children because "golf is a game where values such as honesty, integrity and sportsmanship are essential."
The golf program grant is one of a number of Justice Department grants now coming under scrutiny by a Congressional committee which will hold hearings next week.
A key witness will be a former employee of Flores' office, Scott Peterson, who says the grants were awarded based more on politics than merit.
"This is cronyism, this is waste, fraud and abuse," Peterson told ABC News in an interview aired on Nightline Monday night.
Peterson says the money for the golf program is one of a number of grants awarded to lower-ranked applicants rated in rankings compiled by Justice Department staff members.
"It's a lot of our taxpayer money that's supposed to go for some of our most vulnerable children," Peterson said.
Justice Department Official Awards $500,000 Grant to Golf Group
Former Staffer Tells ABC News Anti-Crime Funds Given to Programs With The "Right" Connections.
FONT SIZE
DIGG
SHARE
Peterson says current employees smuggled documents out of the Justice Department so he could provide them to ABC News as proof of the favoritism.
ojjdp
(ABC News Photo Illustration)
More Photos
"More than a half dozen career employees through faxes, FedEx, made sure that you had this stuff," said Peterson.
Many top-rated programs were denied federal grants.
A program to help troubled teens in San Diego, Vista, was ranked number two by the staff out of 202 applicants in its category of prevention and intervention but was turned down for a grant to help deal with inner city teen violence in San Diego.
Another program, designed to train adult guards to deal with teens in custody, also was denied federal money even though it was ranked by the staff number 2 out of 104 in its category.
"What Flores did in this situation is he just stomped on the heads of kids who are very much at risk and in trouble in this country," said Earl Dunlap, who runs the guard training program for the National Partnership for Juvenile Services.
"He determined what the rules were gonna be and who was gonna play and who was gonna be welcome in his club. And everybody else could take a hike," said Dunlap of Flores.
In a telephone interview with ABC News, Flores defended his decisions as in the best overall interest of dealing with teen crime.
He said he was never bound by his staff's recommendations and that he made decisions based "on the overall" need in the country.
Flores was appointed to the position by President Bush six years ago and has overseen about $1.5 billion dollars in grants during that time.
His former employee, Scott Peterson, said Flores holds daily prayer sessions in the Justice Department office and frowns on giving grant money to organizations that provide sex education or condoms to teenagers.
Instead, said Peterson, Flores favors programs that promote sexual abstinence.
A Washington, D.C. program, Best Friends, that promotes abstinences was awarded $1.1 million by Flores even though it ranked 53rd on a list of 104 applicants.
Justice Department Official Awards $500,000 Grant to Golf Group
Former Staffer Tells ABC News Anti-Crime Funds Given to Programs With The "Right" Connections.
Best Friends is run by Elayne Bennett, the wife of Bill Bennett, a former Republican cabinet member and now political commentator.
"We're really about positive friendships," she told ABC News at a recent charity gala that included many of Washington's GOP elite. "A good, solid friendship is a beautiful thing," she said.
Murray Waas is a Washington-based investigative reporter who primarily covers national security and law enforcement issues. He is a contributing editor to the National Journal and has also written for the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe and other newspapers and magazines.
The European Union & the Listing of LTTE as a Terrorist Organisation
Sathyam Commentary
28 December 2008
The European Union & the Listing of LTTE
as a Terrorist Organisation - Some Reflections
[see also U.S. State Department Undertakes Review of Designation of LTTE as a Terrorist Organisation together with Comment by tamilnation.org ]
"Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy..."
One would imagine that after several decades of painful experience,
the fly may have also worked out ways of negotiating spider webs...
The question of initiating legal proceedings to challenge the listing of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation by the United Kingdom and the European Union has been raised with me from time to time by concerned Tamils during the past several months. As 2008 draws to a close, I felt that it may be helpful to place on record some of my responses.
At the outset there may be a need to recognise that the listing of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation by the European Union was a political decision. The designation had little to do with the means adopted by the LTTE and everything to do with its end goal of an independent Tamil Eelam. Given the uneasy balance of power in the Indian Ocean region and the emerging influence of China and Iran, it is this end goal of an independent Tamil Eelam which the US, UK and the European Union find inimical to their strategic interests.
"...the denial by international actors of their conflicting strategic interests in Sri Lanka draws a veil over the real issues that any meaningful conflict resolution process in the island will need to address. We cannot ostrich like bury our collective heads in the sand - and, to mix the metaphor, ignore the elephant in the room. Whilst the goal of securing peace through justice is loudly proclaimed by the international actors, real politick leads them to deny the justice of the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom from alien Sinhala rule. The harsh reality is that on the one hand international actors are concerned to use the opportunity of the conflict in the island to advance each of their own strategic interests - and on the other hand, Sri Lanka seeks to use the political space created by the geo strategic triangle of US-India-China in the Indian Ocean region, to buy the support of all three for the continued rule of the people of Tamil Eelam by a permanent Sinhala majority within the confines of one state..." International Dimensions of the conflict in Sri Lanka, 2 October 2007
The LTTE was not listed by the EU until May 2006 - until that is, the EU felt that its 'good cop' role vis a vis the US 'bad cop' role in the Norwegian sponsored peace process, was not yielding the returns that both the EU and the US had worked for and desired. The screw was then turned. And the Co-Chairs Press Release came within 24 hours of the EU listing. Here, the diplomatic routine followed by the EU, the UK and the US was not dissimilar: first threaten to ban, then ban but not implement, then implement the ban in a calibrated fashion, and finally suggest that the ban may be removed if only the LTTE will 'play ball'.
Given that the listing was a political decision, any decision by the LTTE to challenge the listing will also be a political decision. It is a political decision that the LTTE will have to be make on the basis of its own understanding of all the elements of the prevailing political situation. I myself do not have an understanding of all those elements that the LTTE may regard as relevant and I cannot and do not express an opinion on that matter - nor for that matter do I seek to second guess what the LTTE may or may not want to do.
I will confine myself to some legal issues that may be relevant to any recourse to the Courts to challenge the European Union listing.
I like to believe that the law is not a jackass. Perhaps this is a self serving view influenced by my own legal training! Said that, I also believe that something which Dr Colin J Harvey said about international law has a general applicability to all law (to a lesser or a greater extent) -
"...International law is political. There is no escape from contestation. Hard lessons indeed for lawyers who wish to escape the indeterminate nature of the political. For those willing to endorse this the opportunities are great. The focus then shifts to interdisciplinarity and the horizontal networks which function in practice in ways rendered invisible by many standard accounts of law. This of course has important implications for how we conceive of law's role in ethnic conflict. We must abandon the myth that with law we enter the secure, stable and determinate. In reality we are simply engaged in another discursive political practice about how we should live..."
If we recognise that we are engaging 'in another discursive political practice', the opportunities are great to constructively engage in the legal process. Good law is sound commonsense. If something offends commonsense, it cannot be good law. And courts will be reluctant to uphold it. Courts will be reluctant, because to offend commonsense would be to erode the confidence that a people have in the judicial system – a confidence that is essential to ensure the continuing stability of the existing order. And for the courts, that usually makes political sense as well.
The legal position in relation to the listing by the EU may be straightforwardly stated. It is not overly complex. The listing is a decision taken by the executive in the exercise of powers conferred by the law. The listing is an executive decision within a legal frame. A legal challenge to the listing decision may therefore take three forms
1. a challenge to the executive decision
2. a challenge to the legal frame
3. a challenge to both the executive decision and the legal frame
The first course - i.e. a challenge only to the executive decision - is the way of appealing to the executive to review its decision and/or going to the courts to seek a judicial review of the decision without challenging the validity of the legal frame itself. Indeed in the case of an appeal to a body like a review tribunal created by the same legal frame (which empowered the executive to act), the appellant implicitly accepts the validity of the legal frame - and, therefore, cannot challenge it in the same proceedings.
The second course - i.e. a challenge to the legal frame - is to contend that the provisions of the law under which the executive purported to act is invalid and that therefore the executive did not have the power to make the decision that it did.
The third course is self explanatory – it is a combination of the first two.
In my view the first course has little or no chance of success on legal grounds. Said that it is true that the executive itself may be wanting to review the decision on political grounds and may make it known that it is seeking a politically acceptable (and calibrated) way of doing so. Such an approach may stem from a recognition by the UK, the European Union and the US that ambiguity is not without its constructive uses - more so because of the need to wean not so much President Rajapakse (and US green card holders Sarath Fonseka and Gothabaya Rajapakse) but President Rajapakse's left leaning political constituency from a permanent dependence on China/Iran.
Be that as it may, the reason that I am of the opinion that the first course of action has little or no chance of success on legal grounds are several.
For one thing, on the ground of national security, the material on which the listing was made will not be made available to the appellant for cross examination - because to do so would be to put at risk the national security apparatus of the state, which must function in secrecy. The result is that much of the material on which the executive made its decision cannot be tested for its veracity.
Additionally, Courts have always been reluctant to substitute their own assessments and opinions to that of the executive on matters of national security. Courts take the view that where 'national security' is threatened, executive discretion relating to the very life of the nation is involved and this is not a matter where the judiciary should supplant the expressed view of the executive. It is said that the law has empowered the executive (and not the judiciary) to assess matters relating to national security. In the telling phrase of Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgment in Liversidge v Anderson in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in 1942, the courts become "more executive-minded than the executive".
In my view the second course - i.e. a challenge to the legal frame - has a better chance of success. The legal frame can be challenged on several grounds including the ground that the vagueness and the breadth of the definition of terrorism in the legal frame offends the rule of law and fundamental freedoms - and in effect, clothes the executive with arbitrary powers, akin to the powers of the old English chancery courts where equity was measured by the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. The essence of the rule of law is that the executive cannot act arbitrarily.
I myself take the view that legal frames which conflate the two words 'violence' and 'terrorism' offend common sense. A simple question that may have to be asked is whether there are any circumstances under which a people may lawfully resort to violence to secure freedom from alien rule – and if so what are those circumstances.
Admittedly here too Courts may be reluctant to annul the provisions of a law which are intended to advance national security. At the same time Courts may be compelled to address the growing concerns of liberal opinion in Europe and elsewhere that ‘liberty may come to die by the efforts made on her behalf’ – and Courts may therefore seek to interpret the provisions of the law in such a way that they are at least, not seen to offend fundamental freedoms, international law and standards.
The third course is to combine both the first and the second course. This approach has the advantage of securing a broad based public diplomacy platform. Said that, I am of the opinion that it is important to secure that the emphasis on the second course i.e. the attack on the legal frame, is not diluted in any way – and at any stage.
So much for substantive law. As for procedure, I agree with the view expressed by Professors Bill Bowring (Director of Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute, London Metropolitan University) and Douwe Korff (London Metropolitan University) in Terrorist Designation with Regard to European and International Law:The Case of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)–
- that legal challenges are pursued with vigour at the national level, first of all in countries in which it is likely that the courts will decline jurisdiction on the basis that the issue is entirely determined by EC/EU law: this would allow for an immediate submission thereafter of an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR); and
- that an organisation pursue challenges in countries in which it has a good chance of the domestic courts being willing to hold (either on the basis of the ECHR, where the Convention is directly applicable and given a high status, or on the basis of the national constitution) that they should be granted full “access to court”, with the (domestic) court in question being able to assess the underlying matters of law and fact in full
- We would urge caution over pursuing cases through the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice: as ... these courts are ill-equipped to deal with the matters in question and are likely to adopt a minimalist approach to any judicial review they may carry out of the Common Positions and Regulations concerned - which would (we feel) set a bad precedent for any Strasbourg adjudication (by the Europan Court of Human Rights) on the matter.”
I too would urge caution over pursuing cases through the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice as I agree with the view that these courts are ill-equipped to deal with the matters in question and are likely to adopt a minimalist approach to any judicial review they may carry out of the Common Positions and Regulations concerned - which would set a bad precedent for any Strasbourg adjudication on the matter. See also generally Terrorism: European Union Law & Practise and Terrorism: United Kingdom Law & Practise.
Finally, it is perhaps appropriate that I include here an exchange of emails that I had with a visitor to tamilnation.org, some 10 years ago. This was at the time that a court challenge was launched on the US designation of the LTTE as a 'terrorist' organisation.
A visitor to tamilnation.org wrote to me in July 1998 -
"....While I ask you to pardon me for raising this issue, I have briefly talked to Rudrakumaran and he has welcomed and encouraged my suggestion to write to you. Away from the battles at home, all of us are aware that a verdict in favor of the LTTE in the D.C courts will be a significant victory in our struggle. While the popularity of the TamilNation soars, the Tamil Nation needs your services at the courts."
And I replied in July 1998 -
"Many thanks for your comments. Around the time that the (US) case was instituted, I was in fact asked by Rudrakumaran to assist. But I declined. There were several reasons for my decision.
(On the one hand) I recognised that there was a need to challenge the US (and the Canadian) decision to categorise the LTTE as a 'terrorist' organisation. If no challenge was launched, it may have meant an acceptance of the label. At the same time I felt that it was necessary to consider the effect of an adverse result in a court case - i.e. the effect if the executive decision was not nullified, but ‘validated’ by a judgment of a court. Here, several aspects had to be reviewed, including the fact that an ongoing court case, may in fact keep the door open for some sort of negotiated resolution of the matter...
However, I did feel that whatever approach was adopted, it should take into account a dispassionate assessment of the chances of eventual success in a Court challenge.
The important point to remember is that the US Courts do not (repeat, not) have the power to look into all the facts, ab initio, and decide for themselves whether, on the facts the LTTE, is a 'terrorist' organisation. The Court’s power to review is heavily circumscribed - without going into too much of the law - it will be fair to say that the Courts power is limited to determining whether the executive, on the available material, was wholly unreasonable to take the view that it has taken.
This is a very heavy burden, particular in cases where national security is involved. Again, on the ground of national security, some of the material on which the executive may rely, will not be disclosed to the opposing party - and there will be no opportunity to properly rebut such material or test its veracity.
The law in this area has developed on the basis that in matters of national security, courts should not second guess the executive unless the executive can be shown to have acted ‘arbitrarily’ or in ‘bad faith’. The rationalisation is that the relevant law itself has empowered the executive (and not the courts) to determine whether an organisation is a 'terrorist' one or not - and that courts should not use the instrument of ‘judicial review’ to supplant the decision of the executive with their own decision. It was, for instance, this view that prevailed in the Suresh case.
Lawyers who advise a client in this context, will need to make a fair assessment of the chance of success... This is not to say that skilful advocacy may not help, but it is to point out the serious limitations of the legal frame within which an executive decision related to national security may be challenged. I believe that it is important that support for the court action should be mobilised on the basis of a realistic and public assessment of these limitations, so that Tamil (and other) opinion is not disheartened should there be an eventual adverse verdict.
I am reminded of the occasion when I was retained to appear in the Thangathurai/Kuttimuni case and my first meeting with Nadarajah Thangathurai. (You will find a reference to it in the Sabaratnam Memorial lecture at the tamilnation website). I met Thangathurai at the high security Panagoda Prison, in early 1982, a few months before I commenced his defence at the trial at the Colombo High Court for offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I remember telling him that whilst I would defend him to the best of my ability, it was unlikely that a Sinhala Judge acting within the framework of the Sri Lankan judicial system would do that which was fair and that it was inevitable that he would be convicted on the basis of alleged confessions, even though they had been extracted by torture.
I told him that if he had retained me in the belief that my appearance on his behalf would lead to an acquittal then I felt that I should declare to him at the very beginning that I for one did not believe that I would be able to achieve such a result. I shall always remember Nadarajah Thangathurai's response. It was immediate and spontaneous. He spoke in Tamil:
'When we first involved ourselves in this struggle, we knew that a situation such as the present one may arise - please do not feel sad about this'.
Thangathurai also added: "The court case affords us a platform to further our struggle and we are content if this can be achieved - whatever may happen to us."
In the Sri Lanka situation, at that time in 1982, the court proceedings though blacked out in the Government controlled English press, did receive daily widespread publicity in the Tamil media and this contributed in some measure to secure the objectives that Thangathurai had in mind.
Whether the court case in the US may be used as a platform to further the struggle is one thing - but, whether a US court will set aside the decision of the executive in a national security matter is another matter.
Again, the comments that I have made here are in respect of the court case brought against the categorisation of the LTTE as a 'terrorist' organisation. The attack on the constitutional validity of the law itself is another matter - because in this latter case, courts are concerned with determining whether the law itself offends fundamental rights and they are not constrained by their reluctance to invalidate an executive decision in the area of national security.
The harsh political reality is that non state nations do not 'become' states as a result of a binding judgment delivered by a court of law on the legality of their claims. A definitive characteristic of a state is that it enjoys a monopoly of lawful coercive power within its territory and history shows that states have acquired that monopoly by struggle and not by judgments of courts of law - and often, despite such judgments.
It will be unwise to act on the basis that an armed resistance movement seeking independence from an existing state (which is a member of the United Nations) will be declared lawful by a court in another state (which is also a member of the United Nations) - against the political will of the state in which that court functions. It is unlikely that the claims of liberation movements will be determined in the courts of 'justice' in New York, New Delhi nor for that matter at the annual sessions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights - unless ofcourse the political will already exists.
Though it was flattering to read the expression of your views concerning myself, I believe that the truth is that the Tamil Eelam nation has no need for my legal services in the court arena. But, of course, that is not to say that the court case may not be usefully employed to mobilise support outside the court arena - and generally, for the justice of the struggle for Tamil Eelam.
Finally, may I reiterate my view that the US court case on the LTTE question, is in the capable hands of Rudrakumaran, and I have every confidence in his ability - and it will not fail, due to any lack of skills on his part."
END:
RUDRAKUMAR IS EXPERIENCED IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS, AND HAS ABOUT 15 YEARS EXPERIENCE
IN THAT FIELD AS OF 2008, AND 6 YEARS IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS OR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GOSL.
28 December 2008
The European Union & the Listing of LTTE
as a Terrorist Organisation - Some Reflections
[see also U.S. State Department Undertakes Review of Designation of LTTE as a Terrorist Organisation together with Comment by tamilnation.org ]
"Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy..."
One would imagine that after several decades of painful experience,
the fly may have also worked out ways of negotiating spider webs...
The question of initiating legal proceedings to challenge the listing of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation by the United Kingdom and the European Union has been raised with me from time to time by concerned Tamils during the past several months. As 2008 draws to a close, I felt that it may be helpful to place on record some of my responses.
At the outset there may be a need to recognise that the listing of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation by the European Union was a political decision. The designation had little to do with the means adopted by the LTTE and everything to do with its end goal of an independent Tamil Eelam. Given the uneasy balance of power in the Indian Ocean region and the emerging influence of China and Iran, it is this end goal of an independent Tamil Eelam which the US, UK and the European Union find inimical to their strategic interests.
"...the denial by international actors of their conflicting strategic interests in Sri Lanka draws a veil over the real issues that any meaningful conflict resolution process in the island will need to address. We cannot ostrich like bury our collective heads in the sand - and, to mix the metaphor, ignore the elephant in the room. Whilst the goal of securing peace through justice is loudly proclaimed by the international actors, real politick leads them to deny the justice of the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom from alien Sinhala rule. The harsh reality is that on the one hand international actors are concerned to use the opportunity of the conflict in the island to advance each of their own strategic interests - and on the other hand, Sri Lanka seeks to use the political space created by the geo strategic triangle of US-India-China in the Indian Ocean region, to buy the support of all three for the continued rule of the people of Tamil Eelam by a permanent Sinhala majority within the confines of one state..." International Dimensions of the conflict in Sri Lanka, 2 October 2007
The LTTE was not listed by the EU until May 2006 - until that is, the EU felt that its 'good cop' role vis a vis the US 'bad cop' role in the Norwegian sponsored peace process, was not yielding the returns that both the EU and the US had worked for and desired. The screw was then turned. And the Co-Chairs Press Release came within 24 hours of the EU listing. Here, the diplomatic routine followed by the EU, the UK and the US was not dissimilar: first threaten to ban, then ban but not implement, then implement the ban in a calibrated fashion, and finally suggest that the ban may be removed if only the LTTE will 'play ball'.
Given that the listing was a political decision, any decision by the LTTE to challenge the listing will also be a political decision. It is a political decision that the LTTE will have to be make on the basis of its own understanding of all the elements of the prevailing political situation. I myself do not have an understanding of all those elements that the LTTE may regard as relevant and I cannot and do not express an opinion on that matter - nor for that matter do I seek to second guess what the LTTE may or may not want to do.
I will confine myself to some legal issues that may be relevant to any recourse to the Courts to challenge the European Union listing.
I like to believe that the law is not a jackass. Perhaps this is a self serving view influenced by my own legal training! Said that, I also believe that something which Dr Colin J Harvey said about international law has a general applicability to all law (to a lesser or a greater extent) -
"...International law is political. There is no escape from contestation. Hard lessons indeed for lawyers who wish to escape the indeterminate nature of the political. For those willing to endorse this the opportunities are great. The focus then shifts to interdisciplinarity and the horizontal networks which function in practice in ways rendered invisible by many standard accounts of law. This of course has important implications for how we conceive of law's role in ethnic conflict. We must abandon the myth that with law we enter the secure, stable and determinate. In reality we are simply engaged in another discursive political practice about how we should live..."
If we recognise that we are engaging 'in another discursive political practice', the opportunities are great to constructively engage in the legal process. Good law is sound commonsense. If something offends commonsense, it cannot be good law. And courts will be reluctant to uphold it. Courts will be reluctant, because to offend commonsense would be to erode the confidence that a people have in the judicial system – a confidence that is essential to ensure the continuing stability of the existing order. And for the courts, that usually makes political sense as well.
The legal position in relation to the listing by the EU may be straightforwardly stated. It is not overly complex. The listing is a decision taken by the executive in the exercise of powers conferred by the law. The listing is an executive decision within a legal frame. A legal challenge to the listing decision may therefore take three forms
1. a challenge to the executive decision
2. a challenge to the legal frame
3. a challenge to both the executive decision and the legal frame
The first course - i.e. a challenge only to the executive decision - is the way of appealing to the executive to review its decision and/or going to the courts to seek a judicial review of the decision without challenging the validity of the legal frame itself. Indeed in the case of an appeal to a body like a review tribunal created by the same legal frame (which empowered the executive to act), the appellant implicitly accepts the validity of the legal frame - and, therefore, cannot challenge it in the same proceedings.
The second course - i.e. a challenge to the legal frame - is to contend that the provisions of the law under which the executive purported to act is invalid and that therefore the executive did not have the power to make the decision that it did.
The third course is self explanatory – it is a combination of the first two.
In my view the first course has little or no chance of success on legal grounds. Said that it is true that the executive itself may be wanting to review the decision on political grounds and may make it known that it is seeking a politically acceptable (and calibrated) way of doing so. Such an approach may stem from a recognition by the UK, the European Union and the US that ambiguity is not without its constructive uses - more so because of the need to wean not so much President Rajapakse (and US green card holders Sarath Fonseka and Gothabaya Rajapakse) but President Rajapakse's left leaning political constituency from a permanent dependence on China/Iran.
Be that as it may, the reason that I am of the opinion that the first course of action has little or no chance of success on legal grounds are several.
For one thing, on the ground of national security, the material on which the listing was made will not be made available to the appellant for cross examination - because to do so would be to put at risk the national security apparatus of the state, which must function in secrecy. The result is that much of the material on which the executive made its decision cannot be tested for its veracity.
Additionally, Courts have always been reluctant to substitute their own assessments and opinions to that of the executive on matters of national security. Courts take the view that where 'national security' is threatened, executive discretion relating to the very life of the nation is involved and this is not a matter where the judiciary should supplant the expressed view of the executive. It is said that the law has empowered the executive (and not the judiciary) to assess matters relating to national security. In the telling phrase of Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgment in Liversidge v Anderson in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in 1942, the courts become "more executive-minded than the executive".
In my view the second course - i.e. a challenge to the legal frame - has a better chance of success. The legal frame can be challenged on several grounds including the ground that the vagueness and the breadth of the definition of terrorism in the legal frame offends the rule of law and fundamental freedoms - and in effect, clothes the executive with arbitrary powers, akin to the powers of the old English chancery courts where equity was measured by the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. The essence of the rule of law is that the executive cannot act arbitrarily.
I myself take the view that legal frames which conflate the two words 'violence' and 'terrorism' offend common sense. A simple question that may have to be asked is whether there are any circumstances under which a people may lawfully resort to violence to secure freedom from alien rule – and if so what are those circumstances.
Admittedly here too Courts may be reluctant to annul the provisions of a law which are intended to advance national security. At the same time Courts may be compelled to address the growing concerns of liberal opinion in Europe and elsewhere that ‘liberty may come to die by the efforts made on her behalf’ – and Courts may therefore seek to interpret the provisions of the law in such a way that they are at least, not seen to offend fundamental freedoms, international law and standards.
The third course is to combine both the first and the second course. This approach has the advantage of securing a broad based public diplomacy platform. Said that, I am of the opinion that it is important to secure that the emphasis on the second course i.e. the attack on the legal frame, is not diluted in any way – and at any stage.
So much for substantive law. As for procedure, I agree with the view expressed by Professors Bill Bowring (Director of Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute, London Metropolitan University) and Douwe Korff (London Metropolitan University) in Terrorist Designation with Regard to European and International Law:The Case of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)–
- that legal challenges are pursued with vigour at the national level, first of all in countries in which it is likely that the courts will decline jurisdiction on the basis that the issue is entirely determined by EC/EU law: this would allow for an immediate submission thereafter of an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR); and
- that an organisation pursue challenges in countries in which it has a good chance of the domestic courts being willing to hold (either on the basis of the ECHR, where the Convention is directly applicable and given a high status, or on the basis of the national constitution) that they should be granted full “access to court”, with the (domestic) court in question being able to assess the underlying matters of law and fact in full
- We would urge caution over pursuing cases through the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice: as ... these courts are ill-equipped to deal with the matters in question and are likely to adopt a minimalist approach to any judicial review they may carry out of the Common Positions and Regulations concerned - which would (we feel) set a bad precedent for any Strasbourg adjudication (by the Europan Court of Human Rights) on the matter.”
I too would urge caution over pursuing cases through the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice as I agree with the view that these courts are ill-equipped to deal with the matters in question and are likely to adopt a minimalist approach to any judicial review they may carry out of the Common Positions and Regulations concerned - which would set a bad precedent for any Strasbourg adjudication on the matter. See also generally Terrorism: European Union Law & Practise and Terrorism: United Kingdom Law & Practise.
Finally, it is perhaps appropriate that I include here an exchange of emails that I had with a visitor to tamilnation.org, some 10 years ago. This was at the time that a court challenge was launched on the US designation of the LTTE as a 'terrorist' organisation.
A visitor to tamilnation.org wrote to me in July 1998 -
"....While I ask you to pardon me for raising this issue, I have briefly talked to Rudrakumaran and he has welcomed and encouraged my suggestion to write to you. Away from the battles at home, all of us are aware that a verdict in favor of the LTTE in the D.C courts will be a significant victory in our struggle. While the popularity of the TamilNation soars, the Tamil Nation needs your services at the courts."
And I replied in July 1998 -
"Many thanks for your comments. Around the time that the (US) case was instituted, I was in fact asked by Rudrakumaran to assist. But I declined. There were several reasons for my decision.
(On the one hand) I recognised that there was a need to challenge the US (and the Canadian) decision to categorise the LTTE as a 'terrorist' organisation. If no challenge was launched, it may have meant an acceptance of the label. At the same time I felt that it was necessary to consider the effect of an adverse result in a court case - i.e. the effect if the executive decision was not nullified, but ‘validated’ by a judgment of a court. Here, several aspects had to be reviewed, including the fact that an ongoing court case, may in fact keep the door open for some sort of negotiated resolution of the matter...
However, I did feel that whatever approach was adopted, it should take into account a dispassionate assessment of the chances of eventual success in a Court challenge.
The important point to remember is that the US Courts do not (repeat, not) have the power to look into all the facts, ab initio, and decide for themselves whether, on the facts the LTTE, is a 'terrorist' organisation. The Court’s power to review is heavily circumscribed - without going into too much of the law - it will be fair to say that the Courts power is limited to determining whether the executive, on the available material, was wholly unreasonable to take the view that it has taken.
This is a very heavy burden, particular in cases where national security is involved. Again, on the ground of national security, some of the material on which the executive may rely, will not be disclosed to the opposing party - and there will be no opportunity to properly rebut such material or test its veracity.
The law in this area has developed on the basis that in matters of national security, courts should not second guess the executive unless the executive can be shown to have acted ‘arbitrarily’ or in ‘bad faith’. The rationalisation is that the relevant law itself has empowered the executive (and not the courts) to determine whether an organisation is a 'terrorist' one or not - and that courts should not use the instrument of ‘judicial review’ to supplant the decision of the executive with their own decision. It was, for instance, this view that prevailed in the Suresh case.
Lawyers who advise a client in this context, will need to make a fair assessment of the chance of success... This is not to say that skilful advocacy may not help, but it is to point out the serious limitations of the legal frame within which an executive decision related to national security may be challenged. I believe that it is important that support for the court action should be mobilised on the basis of a realistic and public assessment of these limitations, so that Tamil (and other) opinion is not disheartened should there be an eventual adverse verdict.
I am reminded of the occasion when I was retained to appear in the Thangathurai/Kuttimuni case and my first meeting with Nadarajah Thangathurai. (You will find a reference to it in the Sabaratnam Memorial lecture at the tamilnation website). I met Thangathurai at the high security Panagoda Prison, in early 1982, a few months before I commenced his defence at the trial at the Colombo High Court for offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I remember telling him that whilst I would defend him to the best of my ability, it was unlikely that a Sinhala Judge acting within the framework of the Sri Lankan judicial system would do that which was fair and that it was inevitable that he would be convicted on the basis of alleged confessions, even though they had been extracted by torture.
I told him that if he had retained me in the belief that my appearance on his behalf would lead to an acquittal then I felt that I should declare to him at the very beginning that I for one did not believe that I would be able to achieve such a result. I shall always remember Nadarajah Thangathurai's response. It was immediate and spontaneous. He spoke in Tamil:
'When we first involved ourselves in this struggle, we knew that a situation such as the present one may arise - please do not feel sad about this'.
Thangathurai also added: "The court case affords us a platform to further our struggle and we are content if this can be achieved - whatever may happen to us."
In the Sri Lanka situation, at that time in 1982, the court proceedings though blacked out in the Government controlled English press, did receive daily widespread publicity in the Tamil media and this contributed in some measure to secure the objectives that Thangathurai had in mind.
Whether the court case in the US may be used as a platform to further the struggle is one thing - but, whether a US court will set aside the decision of the executive in a national security matter is another matter.
Again, the comments that I have made here are in respect of the court case brought against the categorisation of the LTTE as a 'terrorist' organisation. The attack on the constitutional validity of the law itself is another matter - because in this latter case, courts are concerned with determining whether the law itself offends fundamental rights and they are not constrained by their reluctance to invalidate an executive decision in the area of national security.
The harsh political reality is that non state nations do not 'become' states as a result of a binding judgment delivered by a court of law on the legality of their claims. A definitive characteristic of a state is that it enjoys a monopoly of lawful coercive power within its territory and history shows that states have acquired that monopoly by struggle and not by judgments of courts of law - and often, despite such judgments.
It will be unwise to act on the basis that an armed resistance movement seeking independence from an existing state (which is a member of the United Nations) will be declared lawful by a court in another state (which is also a member of the United Nations) - against the political will of the state in which that court functions. It is unlikely that the claims of liberation movements will be determined in the courts of 'justice' in New York, New Delhi nor for that matter at the annual sessions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights - unless ofcourse the political will already exists.
Though it was flattering to read the expression of your views concerning myself, I believe that the truth is that the Tamil Eelam nation has no need for my legal services in the court arena. But, of course, that is not to say that the court case may not be usefully employed to mobilise support outside the court arena - and generally, for the justice of the struggle for Tamil Eelam.
Finally, may I reiterate my view that the US court case on the LTTE question, is in the capable hands of Rudrakumaran, and I have every confidence in his ability - and it will not fail, due to any lack of skills on his part."
END:
RUDRAKUMAR IS EXPERIENCED IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS, AND HAS ABOUT 15 YEARS EXPERIENCE
IN THAT FIELD AS OF 2008, AND 6 YEARS IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS OR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GOSL.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
No transport' for injured soldiers: GOSL faces serious problems in the war front.
No transport' for injured soldiers:
Ranil Wickramasinghe (photo: Elmo Fernando)
UNP leader questions what happened to funds allocated for the war in 2008
The main opposition in Sri Lanka has accused the government of not providing proper transport facilities to injured soldiers in the Vanni battlefield.
Leader of the opposition and the United National Party (UNP), Ranil Wickramasinghe, told journalists in Colombo that Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) does not have enough airplanes to transfer injured soldiers.
The SLAF was not given enough funds to repair seven Antonov aircrafts it had and as a result the SLAF currently has only two aircrafts, he said.
“They have only one Antonov plane and one C130. This is not a secret; SLAF knows and the Tigers also know that,” he said.
Mihin Air
When SLAF officials requested funding for repairs, Mr. Wickramasinghe said, it was rejected by the authorities.
Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena
Government says it has provided 'everything what SLAF commander requested'
“One official has asked why no funds for the SLAF while providing funds for Mihin Air. Now some of those officials were removed from those departments,” he said.
He also accused the government of imposing taxes on the public using the war as an excuse.
The government, however, denied the accusations.
Describing the accusations as 'false', Media Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena said the government has provided enough funds for security forces.
“The ultimate authority for needs of the SLAF is the SLAF commander. The government has provided everything he has requested,” he told BBC Sandeshaya.
The minister added that the government has allocated over Rs. 200 billion in 2008 for the needs of the security forces.
LOCAL LINKS: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2008/12/081228_ranil_soldiers.shtml
Heavy fighting in northern Sri Lanka
27 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
LIOC 'lost' Rs.120 million
26 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
'No decision' over fuel prices
23 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
Free civilians or face ban - President
22 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
'Heavy fighting' near Kilinochchi
21 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
LIOC obeys Supreme Court order
19 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
Bodies exchanged as fighting continues
18 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
LATEST NEWS
Suicide blast in Wattala
'No transport' for injured soldiers
Hospital 'functioning' after shelling
Jayawardene puts Sri Lanka ahead
Ranil Wickramasinghe (photo: Elmo Fernando)
UNP leader questions what happened to funds allocated for the war in 2008
The main opposition in Sri Lanka has accused the government of not providing proper transport facilities to injured soldiers in the Vanni battlefield.
Leader of the opposition and the United National Party (UNP), Ranil Wickramasinghe, told journalists in Colombo that Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) does not have enough airplanes to transfer injured soldiers.
The SLAF was not given enough funds to repair seven Antonov aircrafts it had and as a result the SLAF currently has only two aircrafts, he said.
“They have only one Antonov plane and one C130. This is not a secret; SLAF knows and the Tigers also know that,” he said.
Mihin Air
When SLAF officials requested funding for repairs, Mr. Wickramasinghe said, it was rejected by the authorities.
Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena
Government says it has provided 'everything what SLAF commander requested'
“One official has asked why no funds for the SLAF while providing funds for Mihin Air. Now some of those officials were removed from those departments,” he said.
He also accused the government of imposing taxes on the public using the war as an excuse.
The government, however, denied the accusations.
Describing the accusations as 'false', Media Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena said the government has provided enough funds for security forces.
“The ultimate authority for needs of the SLAF is the SLAF commander. The government has provided everything he has requested,” he told BBC Sandeshaya.
The minister added that the government has allocated over Rs. 200 billion in 2008 for the needs of the security forces.
LOCAL LINKS: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2008/12/081228_ranil_soldiers.shtml
Heavy fighting in northern Sri Lanka
27 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
LIOC 'lost' Rs.120 million
26 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
'No decision' over fuel prices
23 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
Free civilians or face ban - President
22 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
'Heavy fighting' near Kilinochchi
21 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
LIOC obeys Supreme Court order
19 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
Bodies exchanged as fighting continues
18 December, 2008 | Sandeshaya
LATEST NEWS
Suicide blast in Wattala
'No transport' for injured soldiers
Hospital 'functioning' after shelling
Jayawardene puts Sri Lanka ahead
17-year-old SLA soldier killed in Vanni battlefront: GOSL GETS CAUGHT WITH CHILD SOLDIER RECRUITMENT.
17-year-old SLA soldier killed in Vanni battlefront
[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 December 2008, 16:14 GMT]
One of the Identity Cards recovered with a dead body of a young Sri Lanka Army (SLA) soldier revealed that the SLA trooper killed in the offensive forefront in Mullaiththeevu district on Saturday was a 17-year-old boy. LTTE officials displayed photos for reporters in Vanni on Sunday. According to the Article 1 of the the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, signed and ratified by the Sri Lankan government, the government (State Party) should ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.
FOR PICTURES LINK:
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=27856
Identity card of a young SLA recruit killed in the battlefield of Mullaiththeevu
Identity card of a young SLA recruit killed in the battlefield of Mullaiththeevu
Identity card of a young SLA recruit killed in the battlefield of Mullaiththeevu
Identity card of a young SLA recruit killed in the battlefield of Mullaiththeevu
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Bodies of dead SLA soldiers to be handed over to the ICRC by the Tigers
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Photos of SLA soldiers killed in action
The LTTE has earlier said that the dead bodies of SLA soldiers recovered in the battlefront in Vanni displayed victimisation of young generation Sinhalese into the war by the Sri Lankan state.
The latest Child Soldiers Global Report of 2008 has listed Sri Lankan government among 14 countries that recruited, and in some cases used in hostilities, children in auxiliary forces, civilian defence groups or in illegal militias and armed groups acting as proxies for official armed forces.
Sri Lanka signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict on 21 August 2000 and ratified it on 08 September 2000. The Optional Protocol was adopted on 25 May 2000 at the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Earlier, the Tamil Tigers had been accused of under-age recruitment. During the peace process following the Ceasefire Agreement of February 2002, the UNICEF, the LTTE and the GoSL were committed to comply with an Action Plan for Children Affected by Conflict.
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) were eliminating the recruitment and use of child soldiers, according to a report by US State Department in March 2008 in its annual human rights report. "The LTTE had not complied with its promise to end the practice by end of 2007, but its policy of recruiting one person from each family targeted those 18 years or older," the report said.
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Another young SLA soldier killed in action
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Sri Lankan identity card of a slain SLA soldier
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Identity card of another SLA soldier KIA
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Close-up of a photo of SLA soldier killed in action
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Photo of an SLA soldier killed in action
Chronology:
28.12.08 Tigers display weapons seized in Saturday's fighti..
28.12.08 17-year-old SLA soldier killed in Vanni battlefron..
28.12.08 Tigers seize arms, recover 16 SLA bodies in A'lamp..
Tigers display weapons seized in Saturday's fighting in Mullaiththevu
[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 December 2008, 16:34 GMT]
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=27857
Liberation Tigers of Tamileelam (LTTE) Sunday displayed weapons seized by them in the clearing mission after heavy fighting in the frontiers of Mullaiththevu district on Saturday. One of the weapons in the display together with four Rocket Propelled Grenade Launchers was an Anti-Bunker LAW. Among the ammunitions in the display was a grenade with a tag in Urdu, the language of Pakistan, which states: "the grenade is ready to charge".
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Shoulder fired Anti-Tank, Anti-Bunker Weapon seized by the Tigers from the SLA, displayed to the public in Vanni
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Grenade with a tag in Urdu, which says the grenade is ready to use.
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Light Machine Guns and RPGs
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
T-56 assault rifles
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
A section of the arms and ammunition seized by the Tigers in Mullaiththeevu at display
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Shoulder fired Anti-Tank, Anti-Bunker Weapon seized by the Tigers from the SLA
Chronology:
28.12.08 Tigers display weapons seized in Saturday's fighti..
28.12.08 17-year-old SLA soldier killed in Vanni battlefron..
28.12.08 Tigers seize arms, recover 16 SLA bodies in A'lamp..
[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 December 2008, 16:14 GMT]
One of the Identity Cards recovered with a dead body of a young Sri Lanka Army (SLA) soldier revealed that the SLA trooper killed in the offensive forefront in Mullaiththeevu district on Saturday was a 17-year-old boy. LTTE officials displayed photos for reporters in Vanni on Sunday. According to the Article 1 of the the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, signed and ratified by the Sri Lankan government, the government (State Party) should ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.
FOR PICTURES LINK:
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=27856
Identity card of a young SLA recruit killed in the battlefield of Mullaiththeevu
Identity card of a young SLA recruit killed in the battlefield of Mullaiththeevu
Identity card of a young SLA recruit killed in the battlefield of Mullaiththeevu
Identity card of a young SLA recruit killed in the battlefield of Mullaiththeevu
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Bodies of dead SLA soldiers to be handed over to the ICRC by the Tigers
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Photos of SLA soldiers killed in action
The LTTE has earlier said that the dead bodies of SLA soldiers recovered in the battlefront in Vanni displayed victimisation of young generation Sinhalese into the war by the Sri Lankan state.
The latest Child Soldiers Global Report of 2008 has listed Sri Lankan government among 14 countries that recruited, and in some cases used in hostilities, children in auxiliary forces, civilian defence groups or in illegal militias and armed groups acting as proxies for official armed forces.
Sri Lanka signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict on 21 August 2000 and ratified it on 08 September 2000. The Optional Protocol was adopted on 25 May 2000 at the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Earlier, the Tamil Tigers had been accused of under-age recruitment. During the peace process following the Ceasefire Agreement of February 2002, the UNICEF, the LTTE and the GoSL were committed to comply with an Action Plan for Children Affected by Conflict.
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) were eliminating the recruitment and use of child soldiers, according to a report by US State Department in March 2008 in its annual human rights report. "The LTTE had not complied with its promise to end the practice by end of 2007, but its policy of recruiting one person from each family targeted those 18 years or older," the report said.
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Another young SLA soldier killed in action
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Sri Lankan identity card of a slain SLA soldier
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Identity card of another SLA soldier KIA
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Close-up of a photo of SLA soldier killed in action
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Photo of an SLA soldier killed in action
Chronology:
28.12.08 Tigers display weapons seized in Saturday's fighti..
28.12.08 17-year-old SLA soldier killed in Vanni battlefron..
28.12.08 Tigers seize arms, recover 16 SLA bodies in A'lamp..
Tigers display weapons seized in Saturday's fighting in Mullaiththevu
[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 December 2008, 16:34 GMT]
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=27857
Liberation Tigers of Tamileelam (LTTE) Sunday displayed weapons seized by them in the clearing mission after heavy fighting in the frontiers of Mullaiththevu district on Saturday. One of the weapons in the display together with four Rocket Propelled Grenade Launchers was an Anti-Bunker LAW. Among the ammunitions in the display was a grenade with a tag in Urdu, the language of Pakistan, which states: "the grenade is ready to charge".
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Shoulder fired Anti-Tank, Anti-Bunker Weapon seized by the Tigers from the SLA, displayed to the public in Vanni
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Grenade with a tag in Urdu, which says the grenade is ready to use.
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Light Machine Guns and RPGs
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
T-56 assault rifles
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
A section of the arms and ammunition seized by the Tigers in Mullaiththeevu at display
Tigers display arms seized in Mullaiththeevu
Shoulder fired Anti-Tank, Anti-Bunker Weapon seized by the Tigers from the SLA
Chronology:
28.12.08 Tigers display weapons seized in Saturday's fighti..
28.12.08 17-year-old SLA soldier killed in Vanni battlefron..
28.12.08 Tigers seize arms, recover 16 SLA bodies in A'lamp..
Heavy fighting in A'lampil, Tigers seize arms, recover 16 SLA bodies
Heavy fighting in A'lampil, Tigers seize arms, recover 16 SLA bodies
[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 December 2008, 03:05 GMT]
Liberation Tigers of Tamileelam (LTTE) officials said Sunday morning that at least 50 Sri Lanka Army (SLA) soldiers were killed and 90 wounded in A'lampil area in Mullaiththeevu district on Saturday. The LTTE officials further said they seized more than 15 rifles and recovered 16 SLA dead bodies in the clearing mission that followed.
Meanwhile, 15 SLA soldiers were killed and more than 30 wounded in nearby Uduppukku'lam village on Saturday, the Tigers said.
The LTTE did not provide casualty figures of their side.
[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 December 2008, 03:05 GMT]
Liberation Tigers of Tamileelam (LTTE) officials said Sunday morning that at least 50 Sri Lanka Army (SLA) soldiers were killed and 90 wounded in A'lampil area in Mullaiththeevu district on Saturday. The LTTE officials further said they seized more than 15 rifles and recovered 16 SLA dead bodies in the clearing mission that followed.
Meanwhile, 15 SLA soldiers were killed and more than 30 wounded in nearby Uduppukku'lam village on Saturday, the Tigers said.
The LTTE did not provide casualty figures of their side.
Bomb blast in Colombo suburb kills SLA officer, 6 home guards.
Bomb blast in Colombo suburb kills SLA officer, 6 home guards
[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 December 2008, 10:17 GMT]
A Sri Lanka Army officer, six homeguards and a male whom the police alleged was a human bomb were killed in a bomb explosion at a military post at Wattala, a suburb of Colombo around 9:00 a.m. Sunday. More than 10 home guards and a few civilians sustained injuries in the explosion, Police said. The explosion has taken place in front of the Civil Defence Force (home guards office).
The wounded were rushed to Colombo hospital.
One of the killed was a civilian, according to medical sources.
Daily Mirror:
Wattala death toll rises
The death toll from the suicide attack at Wattala has risen to 8, whilst 17 are reported injured. Reports say the casualties include those who came to the Sunday fair.
Updated @ 28/12/2008 01:18 PM
[TamilNet, Sunday, 28 December 2008, 10:17 GMT]
A Sri Lanka Army officer, six homeguards and a male whom the police alleged was a human bomb were killed in a bomb explosion at a military post at Wattala, a suburb of Colombo around 9:00 a.m. Sunday. More than 10 home guards and a few civilians sustained injuries in the explosion, Police said. The explosion has taken place in front of the Civil Defence Force (home guards office).
The wounded were rushed to Colombo hospital.
One of the killed was a civilian, according to medical sources.
Daily Mirror:
Wattala death toll rises
The death toll from the suicide attack at Wattala has risen to 8, whilst 17 are reported injured. Reports say the casualties include those who came to the Sunday fair.
Updated @ 28/12/2008 01:18 PM
Historical background of Mahinda Rajapakse - Sunday Observer:
When Mahinda became the youngest MP...
* Mahinda Rajapaksa was born on November 18, 1945 as the third son of D. A. Rajapaksa and Dandina Samarasinghe Dissanayake. He grew up in a religious background amid brothers and sisters. (Chamal, Jayantha, Chemis, Jayanthi, Chandra, Tuder, Gotabhaya, Nanda, Basil Rohana, Dudley, Piyasiri, Prithi, Chandrani, Gangani, Chithra and Siladari.).
Mahinda learnt Buddhism at Galketiya Viharaya in Galle.
* In 1951 he was admitted to Richmond College, Galle to commence his formal education where the future leader spent his formative years until he entered Nalanda College. At Nalanda, he played not only cricket but also football for the under 13 college football team. (Interesting. He was 6 years old joining Richmond College Galle and 10 years when he left Nalanda College, Maradana. 2 schools in 4-5 years).
* In 1956, he again changed school and entered Thurstan College, Colombo where he won the Colombo District Championship for the putt shot event and was also a member of the College relay team. (This claim is questionable as Rajapakse was never a public school athlete - All Island annual competition).
* In 1975 Mahinda Rajapaksa formed the Sri Lankan Committee for Solidarity with Palestine and was its Chairman for over thirty years. (PLO was a Terrorist group then. Israeli's were very unhappy.)
* On May 13, 1983, he married the daughter of Air Commodore E.P Wickremesinghe, Shiranthi Wickremesinghe. (Catholic). Shiranthi was Miss Sri Lanka in 1978 and also represented Sri Lanka at the Miss World Contest.
The then Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon and the then Secretary General of Parliament, Sam Wijesinghe were the attesting witnesses at their wedding. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has three sons; Namal, Yoshita and Rohitha. He hails from a prominent political family. His father Don Alwin Rajapaksa was a prominent politician and former Member of Parliament. D. H. Rajapaksa his uncle was a State Councillor for Hambantota in 1930 who started sporting the earthly brown shawl to represent kurakkan (a type of cereal) cultivated by the people of the area.
* In 1970 he entered Parliament from the Beliatte constituency as the youngest MP at the tender age of 24 with a record lead of 6626 votes. (Lost the elections in 1977 and was out of Parliament until 1989).
* In 1973 he entered Sri Lanka Law College. He was instrumental in forming the SLFP Lawyers' Association. He took oaths as an Attorney-at-Law in 1976 and did his apprenticeship in the chambers of President's Counsel Daya Perera. (80 year old Daya Perera was appointed High Commissioner in Canada).
* Following the by-election in Mulkirigala which made the exercise of franchise a mockery in the face of unprecedented terror unleashed upon the Opposition by the UNP regime, Mahinda Rajapaksa was taken into custody as a political prisoner and imprisoned at the Magazine Prison in 1985. (Criminal and Jail bird). He spent more than three months in prison under trying circumstances. His mother died while he was in prison and was thus unable to fulfil her last wish to see her beloved son.
* On March 16, 1992, Mahinda Rajapaksa launched the Pada Yathra (a protest march) against State-terrorism of the Premadasa regime and its political oppression.
The historic mass march similar to those launched by freedom fighters such as Mao and Mahatma Gandhi commenced at Viharamahadevi Park and reached its destination the sacred city of Kataragama in eight days. He also launched a spate of mass protests such as Human Chain (from Colombo to Ratnapura) and Jana Ghosha (mass protest movement) culminating in regime change.
In 1994 he was appointed as Minister of Labour and Vocational Training.
Among his achievements as Minister of Labour are the drafting of the Workers' Charter, establishment of the Vocational Training Authority, setting up Rural Vocational Training Centres and the acquisition of Hambantota Lunu Levaya (Saltern) by Employee Trust Fund. (Wow, what an achievement. The Saltern was loosing money.)
* Initiated a housing programme called Deewara Gammana for fishermen and their families.
* Initiated the first ever University for Oceanography known as Sagara Vishwa Vidyalaya.
* Introduced a special banking scheme called "Idiwara Banks" for fishermen established a Coastal Guard Unit, a much needed security system for an island nation, to stop illegal fishing activities and protect the coast of Sri Lanka.
* Provided fisheries communication equipment to improve efficiency through the use of technology.
* In addition to the portfolio of Fisheries, he also held the portfolio of Ports and Shipping for a short period of three months. Within this period, he took initial steps to construct the Hambantota harbour. (What a Lie).(After 3 years as President and 1.5 years as Prime Minister there is no harbor in sight.)
* A crusader of Human Rights, Mahinda Rajapaksa fought against the thousands of involuntary disappearances during the 1988-1989 period of terror. He complained against the gross human rights violations in Sri Lanka to the international human rights organizations including the Geneva Conference for Human Rights.
On October 4, 1999, he delivered a lecture under the title of "Involuntary Disappearances" at the Dehra Doon Human Rights Organisation in India.
* President Rajapaksa is also an accomplished actor and portrayed diverse roles including that of a General in Gamini Fonseka's Nomiyena Minisssu. (Wow, What an actor. He still is.)
In the Opposition, he became a campaigner for Human Rights and together with Manorani Saravanamuttu of Mother's Front, he launched a campaign to highlight the plight of the disappeared.
He was conferred the title of Professor Emeritus by the Vishva Bharati University of Calcutta in recognition of his record on human rights.
On April 06,2004, Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as the 13th Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. (End of April the UNP MP Ali Zahir Mowlana in cooperation with the RAW, GOSL, and SL Army escorted Col. Karuna and his 20-39 entotage from Batticaloa, to Colombo in many vehicles. Karuna brought suicase loads of cash. UNP leader forced him to resign in early May, and Foreign Minister Kadirgamar helped him and his family to escape to America. He filed for political asylum soon after he arrived in the USA.)As PM he initiated a number of development projects including Maga Neguma and proposed and constructed "fly-overs" in Colombo to reduce traffic congestions. (Competing with President Premadasa for round abouts and fly overs.)He became the 5th Executive President on November 19, 2005.
* Mahinda Rajapaksa was born on November 18, 1945 as the third son of D. A. Rajapaksa and Dandina Samarasinghe Dissanayake. He grew up in a religious background amid brothers and sisters. (Chamal, Jayantha, Chemis, Jayanthi, Chandra, Tuder, Gotabhaya, Nanda, Basil Rohana, Dudley, Piyasiri, Prithi, Chandrani, Gangani, Chithra and Siladari.).
Mahinda learnt Buddhism at Galketiya Viharaya in Galle.
* In 1951 he was admitted to Richmond College, Galle to commence his formal education where the future leader spent his formative years until he entered Nalanda College. At Nalanda, he played not only cricket but also football for the under 13 college football team. (Interesting. He was 6 years old joining Richmond College Galle and 10 years when he left Nalanda College, Maradana. 2 schools in 4-5 years).
* In 1956, he again changed school and entered Thurstan College, Colombo where he won the Colombo District Championship for the putt shot event and was also a member of the College relay team. (This claim is questionable as Rajapakse was never a public school athlete - All Island annual competition).
* In 1975 Mahinda Rajapaksa formed the Sri Lankan Committee for Solidarity with Palestine and was its Chairman for over thirty years. (PLO was a Terrorist group then. Israeli's were very unhappy.)
* On May 13, 1983, he married the daughter of Air Commodore E.P Wickremesinghe, Shiranthi Wickremesinghe. (Catholic). Shiranthi was Miss Sri Lanka in 1978 and also represented Sri Lanka at the Miss World Contest.
The then Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon and the then Secretary General of Parliament, Sam Wijesinghe were the attesting witnesses at their wedding. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has three sons; Namal, Yoshita and Rohitha. He hails from a prominent political family. His father Don Alwin Rajapaksa was a prominent politician and former Member of Parliament. D. H. Rajapaksa his uncle was a State Councillor for Hambantota in 1930 who started sporting the earthly brown shawl to represent kurakkan (a type of cereal) cultivated by the people of the area.
* In 1970 he entered Parliament from the Beliatte constituency as the youngest MP at the tender age of 24 with a record lead of 6626 votes. (Lost the elections in 1977 and was out of Parliament until 1989).
* In 1973 he entered Sri Lanka Law College. He was instrumental in forming the SLFP Lawyers' Association. He took oaths as an Attorney-at-Law in 1976 and did his apprenticeship in the chambers of President's Counsel Daya Perera. (80 year old Daya Perera was appointed High Commissioner in Canada).
* Following the by-election in Mulkirigala which made the exercise of franchise a mockery in the face of unprecedented terror unleashed upon the Opposition by the UNP regime, Mahinda Rajapaksa was taken into custody as a political prisoner and imprisoned at the Magazine Prison in 1985. (Criminal and Jail bird). He spent more than three months in prison under trying circumstances. His mother died while he was in prison and was thus unable to fulfil her last wish to see her beloved son.
* On March 16, 1992, Mahinda Rajapaksa launched the Pada Yathra (a protest march) against State-terrorism of the Premadasa regime and its political oppression.
The historic mass march similar to those launched by freedom fighters such as Mao and Mahatma Gandhi commenced at Viharamahadevi Park and reached its destination the sacred city of Kataragama in eight days. He also launched a spate of mass protests such as Human Chain (from Colombo to Ratnapura) and Jana Ghosha (mass protest movement) culminating in regime change.
In 1994 he was appointed as Minister of Labour and Vocational Training.
Among his achievements as Minister of Labour are the drafting of the Workers' Charter, establishment of the Vocational Training Authority, setting up Rural Vocational Training Centres and the acquisition of Hambantota Lunu Levaya (Saltern) by Employee Trust Fund. (Wow, what an achievement. The Saltern was loosing money.)
* Initiated a housing programme called Deewara Gammana for fishermen and their families.
* Initiated the first ever University for Oceanography known as Sagara Vishwa Vidyalaya.
* Introduced a special banking scheme called "Idiwara Banks" for fishermen established a Coastal Guard Unit, a much needed security system for an island nation, to stop illegal fishing activities and protect the coast of Sri Lanka.
* Provided fisheries communication equipment to improve efficiency through the use of technology.
* In addition to the portfolio of Fisheries, he also held the portfolio of Ports and Shipping for a short period of three months. Within this period, he took initial steps to construct the Hambantota harbour. (What a Lie).(After 3 years as President and 1.5 years as Prime Minister there is no harbor in sight.)
* A crusader of Human Rights, Mahinda Rajapaksa fought against the thousands of involuntary disappearances during the 1988-1989 period of terror. He complained against the gross human rights violations in Sri Lanka to the international human rights organizations including the Geneva Conference for Human Rights.
On October 4, 1999, he delivered a lecture under the title of "Involuntary Disappearances" at the Dehra Doon Human Rights Organisation in India.
* President Rajapaksa is also an accomplished actor and portrayed diverse roles including that of a General in Gamini Fonseka's Nomiyena Minisssu. (Wow, What an actor. He still is.)
In the Opposition, he became a campaigner for Human Rights and together with Manorani Saravanamuttu of Mother's Front, he launched a campaign to highlight the plight of the disappeared.
He was conferred the title of Professor Emeritus by the Vishva Bharati University of Calcutta in recognition of his record on human rights.
On April 06,2004, Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as the 13th Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. (End of April the UNP MP Ali Zahir Mowlana in cooperation with the RAW, GOSL, and SL Army escorted Col. Karuna and his 20-39 entotage from Batticaloa, to Colombo in many vehicles. Karuna brought suicase loads of cash. UNP leader forced him to resign in early May, and Foreign Minister Kadirgamar helped him and his family to escape to America. He filed for political asylum soon after he arrived in the USA.)As PM he initiated a number of development projects including Maga Neguma and proposed and constructed "fly-overs" in Colombo to reduce traffic congestions. (Competing with President Premadasa for round abouts and fly overs.)He became the 5th Executive President on November 19, 2005.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Another CPC scam exposed; in Sri Lanka, under the Rajapakse regime.
Another CPC scam exposed
US$1.7 bln Sapugaskanda Refinery Expansion Project
By Natasha Gunaratne
Hard on the heels of the oil hedging disaster follows another scandalous project where the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) entered into a US$1.7 billion refinery expansion with an Iranian company for 50,000 barrels capacity at a cost that is more than twice that of a previous proposal.
The contract between the CPC and Iran's Oil Design and Construction Company (ODCC) was signed in August 2008. However, details have emerged that the other bid from an American company called Global Energy & Industrial Operations Inc. was for US$800 million for 100,000 barrels capacity. The signature of agreements was suspended in October 2005 on the instructions of the Ministry of Petroleum and Petroleum Resources Development.
Secretary to the Ministry of Petroleum and Petroleum Resources Development W.B. Ganegala confirmed that the agreement between the CPC and ODCC of Iran had been signed in August 2008 but could not provide any details regarding the previous bid as he was not at the Ministry during those years. The Minister of Petroleum and Petroleum Resources Development A.H.M. Fowzie was unavailable for comment despite numerous attempts to reach the Ministry by telephone. Former CPC Chairman, Daham Wimalasena said Sri Lanka has lost an opportunity to increase its refining capacity due to the American proposal being rejected by the Minister. "Now we will be saddled with a refinery at a highly inflated cost and with doubtful technology."
According to a letter dated September 19 2008 by Global Energy CEO Dr. Lakdasa Wijetilleke addressed to the Petroleum Minister Mr. A.H.M. Fowzie and copied to the Commercial Attache at the US Embassy, the project with Global Energy was approved by the cabinet of ministers in 2003 and an MOU was subsequently signed by the CPC with the company. This was followed by the preparation of 'Build-Own-Operate-Transfer' (BOOT) agreements by an international law firm on the request of the Cabinet Appointed Negotiating Committee (CANC) at a substantial cost. BOOT agreements were negotiated to the point of signature and the Minister of Finance sought and obtained cabinet approval to sign the agreements, The Sunday Times FT learns from documentary evidence.
Well informed sources said after the signing of the agreements were cancelled with Global Energy, Mr. Fowzie had talked down the deal and told the trade unions that it amounted to privatization. Dr. Wijetilleke's letter also states that Mr. Fowzie said the project would have 'used old machinery and landed these on the government' once the contractor had made the best use of it. This prompted a meeting between Global Energy and the trade unions in June 2006 at the Colombo Hilton in which the company responded to the concerns of the unions.
ODCC Scam
CPC sources said the Central Bank (CB) was alarmed when Mr. Fowzie submitted a Cabinet Memorandum on August 19, 2008 for the expansion of the refinery by 50,000 barrels per day at the US$1.7 billion cost by ODCC. In fact, an Internet search of Iran's oil refinery capabilities shows that the country is suffering from refinery shortages and is forced to import most of its gasoline and diesel. A Reuters report said Iran which is OPEC's second largest crude producer imports around 40% of its gasoline needs which it then heavily subsidizes. Also due to sanctions, Iran does not have design capabilities and their refineries are out of date.
The sources said when CB concerns were raised, word was spread that the Cabinet Memorandum was only for the appointment of a CANC and a Project Evaluation Committee (PEC). The Cabinet, by its decision of September 10, 2008 granted approval for the appointment of members of the two committees. On November 18, 2008, Mr. Fowzie submitted yet another Cabinet Memorandum referring to the cabinet decision and has now sought approval for the Terms of Reference for the CANC and the PEC to 'Study the contract entered into between the CPC and the ODCC of Iran etc…' The Cabinet decision dated September 19th was for the appointment of two committees but the request now is to study a contract entered into by the CPC with ODCC. Sources said the decision took a weird turn and changed into approval of a contract to expand the refinery.
The questions that need to be answered are the following: Since a contract has been signed between the CPC and ODCC for the expansion of the CPC refinery, what is the purpose of evaluating the contract after the fact? Moreover, did the Minister and the CPC obtain Cabinet approval before signing the US$1.7 billion contract albeit with an inexplicable US$900 million add on?
The metamorphosis of an approval to appoint two committees to an approval for signing a contract for a US$1.7 billion project is similar to the sleight of hand of interpreting Cabinet approval granted in principle to hedge oil for a carte blanche approval to sign eight contracts worth over US$600 million sans CANC oversight or further cabinet approval of the terms, conditions, benefits, risks and costs. The sources said neither the CPC board of directors nor the Cabinet of Ministers had approved the Refinery Expansion Contract between the CPC and the ODCC of Iran. If there is a contract as claimed by the Minister, it has to be a deal done by the now former CPC Chairman Mr. Asantha De Mel and the Minister, hatched secretly and privately, the sources said.
They said is perplexing how a commitment could be made when the project had not been subject to mandatory due diligence studies such as conceptual designs and feasibility studies and due diligence to assess funding options and feasibility amongst others. It would serve little purpose when foolish commitments are discovered after being cast in concrete as happened with the hedging debacles where approvals in principle have been used to inveigle eight contracts without even informing the cabinet of the terms, conditions, risk and degree of potential risks against price volatility.
Required procurement procedures mandate the following steps:
- Cabinet approval in principle
- Appointment of the CANC thereafter
- The CANC to nominate a technical evaluation committee (TEC)
- Preparation of a bankable feasibility study for the project and establishment of the design criteria and feasibility based on construction, project and financing costs
- The CANC and TEC jointly to appoint consultants if the CPC does not have the competence to develop the preparation of invitation to bid documents/project design specifications
- CPC to pre-qualify prospective bidders
- Solicit bids both technical and price proposals
- Evaluation of offers by the CANC and TEC
- Recommendation by the CANC of the technically acceptable and most competitive bid to the Cabinet
- Cabinet approval
- Signature of contract
The sources said the above are necessary checks and balances to ensure the integrity of the process and the project and to safeguard the public's interests. "These steps cannot be short-circuited to serve the convenience and whims and fancies of either the Minister or the CPC," a source said. "The Minister's request for approval of the TOR and to evaluate and make recommendations for the EPC contract after a contract has already been signed is self-serving and may be to cover sins of omission and commission already committed and others that may be in the planning stages. This mode of approvals and seeking TOR after the fact is similar to the request of the Minister to appoint a Risk Management Committee after the hedging contracts were signed and the damage inflicted. These are clear examples of securing the stables after the horses have bolted and are gross violations of procurement procedures."
US$1.7 bln Sapugaskanda Refinery Expansion Project
By Natasha Gunaratne
Hard on the heels of the oil hedging disaster follows another scandalous project where the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) entered into a US$1.7 billion refinery expansion with an Iranian company for 50,000 barrels capacity at a cost that is more than twice that of a previous proposal.
The contract between the CPC and Iran's Oil Design and Construction Company (ODCC) was signed in August 2008. However, details have emerged that the other bid from an American company called Global Energy & Industrial Operations Inc. was for US$800 million for 100,000 barrels capacity. The signature of agreements was suspended in October 2005 on the instructions of the Ministry of Petroleum and Petroleum Resources Development.
Secretary to the Ministry of Petroleum and Petroleum Resources Development W.B. Ganegala confirmed that the agreement between the CPC and ODCC of Iran had been signed in August 2008 but could not provide any details regarding the previous bid as he was not at the Ministry during those years. The Minister of Petroleum and Petroleum Resources Development A.H.M. Fowzie was unavailable for comment despite numerous attempts to reach the Ministry by telephone. Former CPC Chairman, Daham Wimalasena said Sri Lanka has lost an opportunity to increase its refining capacity due to the American proposal being rejected by the Minister. "Now we will be saddled with a refinery at a highly inflated cost and with doubtful technology."
According to a letter dated September 19 2008 by Global Energy CEO Dr. Lakdasa Wijetilleke addressed to the Petroleum Minister Mr. A.H.M. Fowzie and copied to the Commercial Attache at the US Embassy, the project with Global Energy was approved by the cabinet of ministers in 2003 and an MOU was subsequently signed by the CPC with the company. This was followed by the preparation of 'Build-Own-Operate-Transfer' (BOOT) agreements by an international law firm on the request of the Cabinet Appointed Negotiating Committee (CANC) at a substantial cost. BOOT agreements were negotiated to the point of signature and the Minister of Finance sought and obtained cabinet approval to sign the agreements, The Sunday Times FT learns from documentary evidence.
Well informed sources said after the signing of the agreements were cancelled with Global Energy, Mr. Fowzie had talked down the deal and told the trade unions that it amounted to privatization. Dr. Wijetilleke's letter also states that Mr. Fowzie said the project would have 'used old machinery and landed these on the government' once the contractor had made the best use of it. This prompted a meeting between Global Energy and the trade unions in June 2006 at the Colombo Hilton in which the company responded to the concerns of the unions.
ODCC Scam
CPC sources said the Central Bank (CB) was alarmed when Mr. Fowzie submitted a Cabinet Memorandum on August 19, 2008 for the expansion of the refinery by 50,000 barrels per day at the US$1.7 billion cost by ODCC. In fact, an Internet search of Iran's oil refinery capabilities shows that the country is suffering from refinery shortages and is forced to import most of its gasoline and diesel. A Reuters report said Iran which is OPEC's second largest crude producer imports around 40% of its gasoline needs which it then heavily subsidizes. Also due to sanctions, Iran does not have design capabilities and their refineries are out of date.
The sources said when CB concerns were raised, word was spread that the Cabinet Memorandum was only for the appointment of a CANC and a Project Evaluation Committee (PEC). The Cabinet, by its decision of September 10, 2008 granted approval for the appointment of members of the two committees. On November 18, 2008, Mr. Fowzie submitted yet another Cabinet Memorandum referring to the cabinet decision and has now sought approval for the Terms of Reference for the CANC and the PEC to 'Study the contract entered into between the CPC and the ODCC of Iran etc…' The Cabinet decision dated September 19th was for the appointment of two committees but the request now is to study a contract entered into by the CPC with ODCC. Sources said the decision took a weird turn and changed into approval of a contract to expand the refinery.
The questions that need to be answered are the following: Since a contract has been signed between the CPC and ODCC for the expansion of the CPC refinery, what is the purpose of evaluating the contract after the fact? Moreover, did the Minister and the CPC obtain Cabinet approval before signing the US$1.7 billion contract albeit with an inexplicable US$900 million add on?
The metamorphosis of an approval to appoint two committees to an approval for signing a contract for a US$1.7 billion project is similar to the sleight of hand of interpreting Cabinet approval granted in principle to hedge oil for a carte blanche approval to sign eight contracts worth over US$600 million sans CANC oversight or further cabinet approval of the terms, conditions, benefits, risks and costs. The sources said neither the CPC board of directors nor the Cabinet of Ministers had approved the Refinery Expansion Contract between the CPC and the ODCC of Iran. If there is a contract as claimed by the Minister, it has to be a deal done by the now former CPC Chairman Mr. Asantha De Mel and the Minister, hatched secretly and privately, the sources said.
They said is perplexing how a commitment could be made when the project had not been subject to mandatory due diligence studies such as conceptual designs and feasibility studies and due diligence to assess funding options and feasibility amongst others. It would serve little purpose when foolish commitments are discovered after being cast in concrete as happened with the hedging debacles where approvals in principle have been used to inveigle eight contracts without even informing the cabinet of the terms, conditions, risk and degree of potential risks against price volatility.
Required procurement procedures mandate the following steps:
- Cabinet approval in principle
- Appointment of the CANC thereafter
- The CANC to nominate a technical evaluation committee (TEC)
- Preparation of a bankable feasibility study for the project and establishment of the design criteria and feasibility based on construction, project and financing costs
- The CANC and TEC jointly to appoint consultants if the CPC does not have the competence to develop the preparation of invitation to bid documents/project design specifications
- CPC to pre-qualify prospective bidders
- Solicit bids both technical and price proposals
- Evaluation of offers by the CANC and TEC
- Recommendation by the CANC of the technically acceptable and most competitive bid to the Cabinet
- Cabinet approval
- Signature of contract
The sources said the above are necessary checks and balances to ensure the integrity of the process and the project and to safeguard the public's interests. "These steps cannot be short-circuited to serve the convenience and whims and fancies of either the Minister or the CPC," a source said. "The Minister's request for approval of the TOR and to evaluate and make recommendations for the EPC contract after a contract has already been signed is self-serving and may be to cover sins of omission and commission already committed and others that may be in the planning stages. This mode of approvals and seeking TOR after the fact is similar to the request of the Minister to appoint a Risk Management Committee after the hedging contracts were signed and the damage inflicted. These are clear examples of securing the stables after the horses have bolted and are gross violations of procurement procedures."
U.S. State Department Undertakes Review of Designation of LTTE as a Terrorist Organisation
U.S. State Department Undertakes Review of Designation of LTTE as a Terrorist Organisation.
http://www.tamilnation.org/terrorism/us/ltte/081104designation_review.htm
4 November 2008
1.United States & the Tamil Eelam Struggle for Freedom "Resolved, that the Massachusetts House of Representatives hereby urges the President and the Congress of the United States to support the Struggle for Freedom by the Tamil Nation for the Restoration and Reconstitution of the separate sovereign state of Tamil Eelam and to recognise publicly the right of self determination by the Tamil people of Tamil Eelam" House of Representatives Resolution, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA, 18 June 1981 and
2.What is Terrorism "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'. 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things'. 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all'." Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carrol - Through the Looking Glass, c.vi ]
Comment by tamilnation.org The politics of the ban continues to unfold. Michael Schubert's remarks 'On Liberation Movements And The Rights Of Peoples' in 1992 bear repetition here -
"In order for... states to quickly and effectively wipe out "revolt", which could get out of hand despite technical superiority (read: better weapons) due to the political and moral convictions of the mass movement, it is necessary to make comprehensive analyses early on and to take effective action in the psychological arena....The central aim of this defence approach is to destroy the morale of the insurgent movement at the early stages, to discredit it and destroy it using repressive means ... thereby preventing a mass movement from starting which could be hard to control with conventional means. Defaming the insurgents as "terrorists" and punishing them accordingly - thereby ignoring international law concerning the rights of people in war - is a particularly useful means."
It is no accident, for instance, that Sri Lanka and states who are concerned to secure the status quo of territorial boundaries imposed by the old colonial rulers, have chosen to designate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a "terrorist" organisation and to deny to the Tamil resistance movement the legitimacy that international law may accord.
"....An armed resistance movement takes shape in the womb of oppression. Its seeds are to be found in the eternal quest for equality and freedom. But, though born of natural parents it is at birth illegitimate - because it breaches the existing legal frame, and seeks to supplant it. And that simple fact has much to do with its subsequent development and growth. An armed resistance movement acquires legitimacy and becomes 'lawful' through its growth and success - not simply because the ends it seeks to achieve are just... The metamorphosis from 'unlawful' to 'lawful' is gradual (and many layered) and is related not only to the justice of the ends it seeks to achieve and the justice of the means it employs but also to the extent to which a guerrilla movement is able to secure and maintain permanent control of territory. It is not a case of one or the other, but a case of all three..." - Nadesan Satyendra in Tamil Armed Resistance and the Law
If truth be told, the designation of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation has little to do with the means adopted by the LTTE and everything to do with its end goal of freedom for the people of Tamil Eelam - freedom from alien Sinhala rule within the confines a single state.
Given the uneasy balance of power in the Indian Ocean region, it is this end goal of an independent Tamil Eelam which, at the present time, albeit for different reasons, both India and US find inimical to their strategic interests. But as the resolution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA in 18 June 1981, suggests this was not always the case - and therefore may not always be the case in the future.
Be that as it may, the politics of the ban usually takes a predictable course. First you threaten to ban unless the organisation falls in line with your perceived strategic interests. Then you ban, to show that you were serious about that which you said. . But you do not implement the ban so that you may continue to engage with the banned organisation and its supporters. Then you start implementing the ban but in a calibrated fashion and negotiate to secure 'appropriate' responses from the banned organisation on a piece meal basis. You may then go on to suggest that the ban may be removed if the banned organisation plays 'ball' and drops its political goal.
"...Western governments’ policies on Sri Lanka should consciously include attempts to open up political space within their Tamil communities for non-Tiger political voices. Those governments with significant Tamil populations should engage representative civil society groups directly, expressing sympathy for the legitimate grievances of minorities in Sri Lanka... Peace supporters should consider setting a deadline for renunciation of a separate state, after which they would actively pursue prosecutions of current LTTE leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.... Countries should develop step-by-step benchmarks for progress towards revoking the terrorist designation – in part to encourage Prabhakaran’s removal..." Report of 20 February 2008 by The International Crisis Group co-chaired by Lord Patten of Barnes, Former UK Cabinet Minister and by Ambassador Thomas R Pickering, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN; and with Gareth Evans, Former Foreign Minister of Australia as President.
To advance your own strategic interests, you may even encourage a banned organisation to appeal for a review of the ban so that sufficient political space is created within which you may continue to engage with the banned organisation and/or its supporters. And, ofcourse, ambiguity is not without its constructive uses. This is all the more so if your own strategic interests are not the same as those of either of the parties to the conflict in which you seek to intervene - and you want to exert pressure on both parties to fall in line and accept your hegemony. States, after all, have permanent interests but they do not have permanent friends. 'Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly'. However, one would imagine that after several decades of painful experience, the fly may have also worked out ways of negotiating spider webs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
from Federal Register, Volume 73, No.214,
Tuesday, November 4 2008, Notices, page 65713
end:
Tamils For Justice delegation met State Department officials in early October for discussions on Tamil issues and United States policy and doctrine.
It was understood that there would be NO public disclosures, and
also the change of guard of Sri Lankan desk/department was also
discussed.
Deproscription is a long way, but everything has changed for the better for the Tamils in USA, Worldwide, and in Sri Lanka with the election of Barrack Obama as President elect, and his gracious appointment of Senator Clinton as Secretary of State.
It was the Clintons who originally proscrimed the LTTE in October 1997, in an unjustified manner, and that decision was never challenged by the Tamils, until Tamils For Justice was formed and they employed Bruce Fein as the attorney to follow up with it's objectives and goals, in 2007-2008.
The Tamils For Justice project was rudely interrupted when Bruce Fein was offered more money by Justice For Thamils, Toronto Canada, and Tamils Against Genocide Bethesda, Maryland, in June and July 2008.
Tamils For Justice pursued and is continuing to persue its objectives and goals. Bruce Fein is engaged not as an attorney of record by the Tamils Against Genocide, but only as their representative.
Tamils For Justice also has had discussions with another very important country on the same Tamil issues, and had great progress since early October.
T4J
http://www.tamilnation.org/terrorism/us/ltte/081104designation_review.htm
4 November 2008
1.United States & the Tamil Eelam Struggle for Freedom "Resolved, that the Massachusetts House of Representatives hereby urges the President and the Congress of the United States to support the Struggle for Freedom by the Tamil Nation for the Restoration and Reconstitution of the separate sovereign state of Tamil Eelam and to recognise publicly the right of self determination by the Tamil people of Tamil Eelam" House of Representatives Resolution, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA, 18 June 1981 and
2.What is Terrorism "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'. 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things'. 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all'." Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carrol - Through the Looking Glass, c.vi ]
Comment by tamilnation.org The politics of the ban continues to unfold. Michael Schubert's remarks 'On Liberation Movements And The Rights Of Peoples' in 1992 bear repetition here -
"In order for... states to quickly and effectively wipe out "revolt", which could get out of hand despite technical superiority (read: better weapons) due to the political and moral convictions of the mass movement, it is necessary to make comprehensive analyses early on and to take effective action in the psychological arena....The central aim of this defence approach is to destroy the morale of the insurgent movement at the early stages, to discredit it and destroy it using repressive means ... thereby preventing a mass movement from starting which could be hard to control with conventional means. Defaming the insurgents as "terrorists" and punishing them accordingly - thereby ignoring international law concerning the rights of people in war - is a particularly useful means."
It is no accident, for instance, that Sri Lanka and states who are concerned to secure the status quo of territorial boundaries imposed by the old colonial rulers, have chosen to designate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a "terrorist" organisation and to deny to the Tamil resistance movement the legitimacy that international law may accord.
"....An armed resistance movement takes shape in the womb of oppression. Its seeds are to be found in the eternal quest for equality and freedom. But, though born of natural parents it is at birth illegitimate - because it breaches the existing legal frame, and seeks to supplant it. And that simple fact has much to do with its subsequent development and growth. An armed resistance movement acquires legitimacy and becomes 'lawful' through its growth and success - not simply because the ends it seeks to achieve are just... The metamorphosis from 'unlawful' to 'lawful' is gradual (and many layered) and is related not only to the justice of the ends it seeks to achieve and the justice of the means it employs but also to the extent to which a guerrilla movement is able to secure and maintain permanent control of territory. It is not a case of one or the other, but a case of all three..." - Nadesan Satyendra in Tamil Armed Resistance and the Law
If truth be told, the designation of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation has little to do with the means adopted by the LTTE and everything to do with its end goal of freedom for the people of Tamil Eelam - freedom from alien Sinhala rule within the confines a single state.
Given the uneasy balance of power in the Indian Ocean region, it is this end goal of an independent Tamil Eelam which, at the present time, albeit for different reasons, both India and US find inimical to their strategic interests. But as the resolution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA in 18 June 1981, suggests this was not always the case - and therefore may not always be the case in the future.
Be that as it may, the politics of the ban usually takes a predictable course. First you threaten to ban unless the organisation falls in line with your perceived strategic interests. Then you ban, to show that you were serious about that which you said. . But you do not implement the ban so that you may continue to engage with the banned organisation and its supporters. Then you start implementing the ban but in a calibrated fashion and negotiate to secure 'appropriate' responses from the banned organisation on a piece meal basis. You may then go on to suggest that the ban may be removed if the banned organisation plays 'ball' and drops its political goal.
"...Western governments’ policies on Sri Lanka should consciously include attempts to open up political space within their Tamil communities for non-Tiger political voices. Those governments with significant Tamil populations should engage representative civil society groups directly, expressing sympathy for the legitimate grievances of minorities in Sri Lanka... Peace supporters should consider setting a deadline for renunciation of a separate state, after which they would actively pursue prosecutions of current LTTE leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.... Countries should develop step-by-step benchmarks for progress towards revoking the terrorist designation – in part to encourage Prabhakaran’s removal..." Report of 20 February 2008 by The International Crisis Group co-chaired by Lord Patten of Barnes, Former UK Cabinet Minister and by Ambassador Thomas R Pickering, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN; and with Gareth Evans, Former Foreign Minister of Australia as President.
To advance your own strategic interests, you may even encourage a banned organisation to appeal for a review of the ban so that sufficient political space is created within which you may continue to engage with the banned organisation and/or its supporters. And, ofcourse, ambiguity is not without its constructive uses. This is all the more so if your own strategic interests are not the same as those of either of the parties to the conflict in which you seek to intervene - and you want to exert pressure on both parties to fall in line and accept your hegemony. States, after all, have permanent interests but they do not have permanent friends. 'Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly'. However, one would imagine that after several decades of painful experience, the fly may have also worked out ways of negotiating spider webs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
from Federal Register, Volume 73, No.214,
Tuesday, November 4 2008, Notices, page 65713
end:
Tamils For Justice delegation met State Department officials in early October for discussions on Tamil issues and United States policy and doctrine.
It was understood that there would be NO public disclosures, and
also the change of guard of Sri Lankan desk/department was also
discussed.
Deproscription is a long way, but everything has changed for the better for the Tamils in USA, Worldwide, and in Sri Lanka with the election of Barrack Obama as President elect, and his gracious appointment of Senator Clinton as Secretary of State.
It was the Clintons who originally proscrimed the LTTE in October 1997, in an unjustified manner, and that decision was never challenged by the Tamils, until Tamils For Justice was formed and they employed Bruce Fein as the attorney to follow up with it's objectives and goals, in 2007-2008.
The Tamils For Justice project was rudely interrupted when Bruce Fein was offered more money by Justice For Thamils, Toronto Canada, and Tamils Against Genocide Bethesda, Maryland, in June and July 2008.
Tamils For Justice pursued and is continuing to persue its objectives and goals. Bruce Fein is engaged not as an attorney of record by the Tamils Against Genocide, but only as their representative.
Tamils For Justice also has had discussions with another very important country on the same Tamil issues, and had great progress since early October.
T4J
Understanding the National Conflict in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka & the Tamils
Understanding the National Conflict
The island called Ceylon had three kingdoms, each with its own sovereignty, and territorial integrity and ruled by different kings, before the arrival of European colonialists. The British were the first to combine the three kingdoms under one
administration in 1833. On independence in 1948, the British handed the entire island to the majority nation, the Sinhalese.
The Tamil war of liberation concerns the right of Tamils to exist on the island as equals, with Justice and Dignity.
Since independence the Sinhalese have dominated politics and the economy, controlling Tamils militarily and discriminating against, and committing human rights abuses against them.
Till 1956 Tamils opted to live in a united country with the Sinhalese. Then they were prepared to live in one country under one federal system. It was in 1976 (28 years after independence) that they wanted to separate because of continuous abuse.
The Tamils have a distinct language and territory, over 5,000 years of history, and their own religion and culture, fulfilling the requirement to nationhood.
Would it not be better for the two nations to live in peace on the island, rather than having two nations at war?
Tamil homeland designated in the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987
Background Independence from Colonial rule When the first colonial power came to Ceylon in the 1505, there were three separate kingdoms in the country. The Portuguese first conquered the maritime
Sinhalese Kingdom and, more than 100 years later, the Tamil Kingdom. The Dutch took over from the Portuguese, and
eventually the British took over from the Dutch. The first British Colonial Secretary to visit Ceylon wrote the much quoted
Cleghorn Minute in 1799, which describes the people living in the country and the boundaries of their places of habitation.
Sinhalese historian Paul E. Peiris has said that when Vijaya, the mythical founder of the Sinhalese race, came to Ceylon, Tamils
were already there, and referred to the existence of five ancient Hindu temples or in various parts of the country.
It was in 1815 that the British conquered the Sinhalese Kandyan Kingdom. All three colonial powers The Sinhalese as well as the Tamils, have all the attributes of Britain granted independence to Ceylon in 1948 and implemented a unitary Constitution with a second chamber (the Senate), Section 29 which gave a modicum of protection to minorities, and appeals to the Privy Council of Britain against decisions of the Supreme Court of Ceylon. The Westminster type of
firstpast-the-post voting system gave the Sinhalese, with 74% of the population of the island, an in-built majority in Parliament.
One of the first initiatives of the independent government was the Citizenship Act, under which almost a million Indian-origin Tamils* lost their citizenship, resulting in the reduction of Tamil representation in Parliament by Eeswarams
* The Tamil community is made up of Tamils who have lived in the North East for thousands of years and Tamils brought in the 1800s by the British to work on the tea & rubber plantations of the central highlands. administered the three Kingdoms separately until, in 1833, they were united under one administration by
the British for their convenience.
nations or peoples, which, according to the covenants of the
United Nations, have the right to self-determination.
about 40%.
Robert Knox’s 1681 map of Ceylon showing three separate kingdoms.
Sinhala hegemony Directly after independence the Sinhalese started exercising their control in everysphere of activity. Discrimination in employment, education, development , and state-assisted colonization of the Tamil homelands by Sinhalese became
state policy.
Discrimination and efforts to change the demography of the Tamil
areas continue to this day. The Sinhalese population in the Eastern Province, an important part of the Tamil homeland, a little over 4 % in 1924, is currently estimated to be over 30% and growing due to the latest maneuvers. Tamils make up 12% of the island’s population, but hold only 5% of government jobs.
Tamils tried to get redress after independence by democratic and parliamentary methods, as well as by Gandhian satyagraha [non-violent protest].
Over the years Tamils have regularly been the victims of pogroms by Sinhalese hoodlums either aided by, or watched in silence by the armed forces, who are 99% Sinhalese and the police who are 95% Sinhalese.
Tamils first tried to live together in a unitary form of government with the Sinhalese community. When the Federal Party stood for
After much discrimination and oppression, Tamils voted overwhelmingly for the Federal Party in 1956. Two parliamentarians who stood for separation in that election were soundly beaten.
This was followed by islandwide pogroms against Tamils in 1956 and 1958. The Prime Minister described the permanent posting of the armed forces in the North East after 1960 as an The national flag was chosen with a prominent Sinhala lion and the national anthem is in Sinhalese.
Two pacts to provide autonomy to the Tamil areas, signed between the Tamil Federal Party and the Sinhala party in power at that time, were abrogated unilaterally by the respective governments following protests by the Sinhala party in opposition in 1957 and 1965.
In 1972 a new constitution was enacted without Tamil participation. The new constitution made the country a Republic, made Buddhism the foremost religion and eliminated the Senate, appeals to the Privy Council, and Section 29 which had given some protection to minorities.
Due to their inability to obtain any redress, and continued discrimination and numerous anti-Tamil pogroms, elections in 1952,
Tamils overwhelmingly voted for the Tamil Congress which supported a
unitary state. At that time, therefore, Tamils preferred a Federal form of government to separation.
In 1956 a bill to make Sinhalese the only official language of the country was passed in parliament over Tamil protests.
‘army of occupation.’
in 1976 all Tamil parties joined together and passed a resolution asking their Parliamentarians to seek the formation of a separate Tamil state in the Homelands of the earlier Tamil Kingdoms.
This was the Tamil people’s mandate to their representatives.
At the next elections in 1977, and ever since then, this mandate has not been changed.
Due to their inability to obtain any redress, and continued discrimination and numerous anti-Tamil pogroms, in 1976 all Tamil parties joined together and passed a resolution asking their Parliamentarians to seek the formation of a separate Tamil state in the Homelands of the earlier Tamil Kingdoms.
This was the Tamil people’s mandate to their representatives. At the next elections in 1977, and ever since then, this mandate has not been changed.
The Government enacted a new Constitution in 1978 creating an allpowerful executive president. Again the Tamil representatives did not participate in the constitution’s drafting. President Jayawardena said that under this constitution he had the power to do anything except change a man into a woman.
He also introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act, described by
International Jurist Paul Seigart as the worst act of its kind in the world, including apartheid South Africa.
The majority Sinhalese government passed the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution in 1983 which made even speaking of separation an
offence. Following this, any reference to the Government of Sri
Lanka refers to the Sinhala majority government. The Tamil representatives in Parliament went into exile in India.
The years that followed have made life intolerable for the Tamils of the island with the security forces doing whatever they want with impunity .The country has been under emergency rule for most of the time since the early 1980s, with almost unlimited powers given to the security forces to terrorise and subjugate the Tamils.
A third of the Tamil population has fled the island and another third have been displaced from their homes, often many times. A hundred thousand Tamils have been killed or disappeared. The Tamil areas are now the poorest on the island and are ruled by military or ex-military governors with the help of the armed forces.
The UK’s Daily Telegraph quoted Pres. Jayawardene as having
said “I do not care what the Tamils think, but my Sinhalese
people will be happy.”
Sri Lankan Tamil refugees arriving in India 2007.
State-sponsored colonization for demographic change
Anti-Tamil pogroms Successive Sinhalese governments have carried out demographic changes in the Tamil homelands at will and the Tamils have not had the political power to prevent such abuse. State-aided colonization of Tamil areas has settled Sinhalese in newly irrigated lands and also in lands from which they have
ethnically cleansed Tamils and Muslims.
Settlements have been specifically placed between the Northern and Eastern provinces of the Tamil homeland to break up the contiguity between them.
Names of places and streets are being changed to Sinhalese names, new Buddhist temples are being built and new Buddha statues erected.
Gerrymandering of areas colonized by Sinhalese has significantly reduced Tamil representation in parliament.
Large areas in the North East have been declared High Security Zones, including a third of the agricultural area in the Jaffna Peninsula, and almost the entire coastline of a community whose main protein source is fish. Restrictions on movement, agriculture, fishing and commerce, along with corruption by the occupying army and the destruction of war have reduced the economy of the North East to a shadow. The population survives on remittances from family
members abroad.
In the run-up to her first presidential elections Chandrika Kumaratunga catalogued the problems faced by Tamils and said “so much so, that almost 800,000 Tamils left the country as external refugees and over a million remain as internal refuges displaced a multiple number of times “. This number is quite a big percentage of the around three million indigenous Tamils.
Since then, more of the same has happened. Abductions, torture, rape, killings, disappearances, carpet bombing and shelling from the seas have become part of the life of Tamils. These abuses have been carried out with impunity by members of the armed forces, special task forces, police, home guards and pliant paramilitary
forces.
It was after anti-Tamil pogroms 1956,1958,1961,1974, 1977, 1979, 1981 and the pogrom of genocidal proportions of 1983 that the Eelam War started. July 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom in which 4,000 died & 95% of Tamil industrial property destroyed.
Tamil aspirations Terrorism or freedom struggle?
At the India-sponsored talks in Thimpu, Bhutan in 1985, all Tamil militants groups and all Tamil political parties jointly spelt out their aspirations openly. If there is to be a solution,
(a) Recognize Tamils as a nation.
(b) Recognize the concept of a Tamil homeland and
(c) Recognize the right to self-determination of the Tamils.
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, introduced after the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 that recognized the existence of the Tamil homeland and provided some autonomy for the provinces, has still
not been implemented in full. The merger of the Northern Province with the Eastern Province has recently been declared invalid by a pliant Supreme Court. In addition, Tamil may have been declared
an ‘official’ language, but the policy has not been implemented in practice.
Tamil youth took to arms in the late 1970s to –
A. Liberate their homeland in keeping with the mandate given by the people.
B. To fight against state terrorism.
Of the civilian deaths thus far, it is widely acknowledged that 95 % have been Tamils killed by the armed forces or their paramilitary proxies.
anything short of that will never be acceptable.
The Thimpu Principles are:
It is incorrect to brand these youth as the terrorists in this conflict.
Tamil IDPs July 2008.One third of the Tamil population are IDPs, another third have fled overseas.
Throughout the centuries, liberation fighters have been fighting for freedom, including George Washington. History is replete with
It was Patrick Henry of Virginia who first said “Give me freedom or give me death.”
It suits the Government (GoSL) to brand Tamil freedom fighters as terrorists, particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on US targets by Al Qaeda. The GoSL has wasted no time in demonizing their antagonists and has deceived the international community with false propaganda and downright lies.
We all think we know what democracy is. Is it not democracy when a people almost unanimously decide to be free and get back their land that they lost to colonial rulers?
The GoSL tries to persuade the world that they are a democratically elected government, but If the island had been a homogeneous
country, a party in power at one time could be voted out, and be in the opposition and vice versa. In a heterogeneous country such as Sri Lanka, Sinhalese representatives are elected democratically by the Sinhalese Nation (people) and, similarly, the Tamil representatives are elected democratically by the Tamil Nation (people).
Tasked with finding a solution to the ‘ethnic conflict,’ today’s APRC is representative only in name. The major Tamil party with 22 Parliamentarians was not even invited to participate. At best, the APRC is a Committee of Parliamentarians of the Southern parties. The Committee’s report has been postponed numerous times. Few expect recommendations that will be productive or original, and consider the APRC another in a long line of attempts to cover up efforts at a military solution with a political fig leaf. Under pressure people who were first called terrorists, and later ‘His Excellency.’
Their fight is to allow the Tamil people to exercise their political rights within their traditional homeland.
the Parliament of Sri Lanka has and will always have a permanent Sinhalese majority.
Because of the population of the two communities, there can never be a Tamil president, prime minister or commander of the military.
Tamil fighters are freedom fighters, not terrorists.
Democracy or majority rule?
All Party Representative Committee
They are not asking for one inch of territory outside of the Tamil
Homelands and have not threatened any international interest.
from India in 2008, the President set up another All Party Conference with the same goal and again excluding the main Tamil party. Requests for peace talks, whether from the GoSL or other countries are purely cosmetic. What is there to negotiate?
Many clauses of the 2002 Cease-Fire Agreement, and other agreements
reached with this government and the previous one were never implemented.
Would the talks be based on the Interim Self-Governing Authority submitted by the freedom fighters and the counter-proposal of the previous government, or will this government give a new outline of what any talks will be based on?
In the last few decades, several new countries have been established, such as East Timor, Kosovo, the Czech and Slovak republics, Eritrea, Bangladesh, and the many successor states to the Soviet Union. Seventy countries have less people and 60 countries less land area than the proposed state of Eelam.
Anyone interested in the figures of the latest casualties, human rights violations, rapes, forced disappearances, abductions, killings, etc. of the Tamil community can get the information provided by the Tamil Center for Human Rights of Paris to the sixth UN Human Rights Commission meetings in Geneva.
www.sangam.org
December, 2008
Further topics forthcoming.
Future Peace Talks and Negotiations
Two States in Peace instead of One State at War On what basis will there be any talks or negotiations? Tamils should know that before starting negotiations.
N.B.
If the talks are to impose the GoSL’s solution on a weakened Tamil people, one could forget about progress occurring. It is essential to hold talks, if any, under the auspices of an international organization or major country which should guarantee any decisions made.
Tamils want Justice, and total Equality in every respect, with Dignity.
If Tamils cannot have such rights, they would want a separate sovereign country.
Association of Sri Lankan Tamils in the USA Sangam!
Understanding the National Conflict
The island called Ceylon had three kingdoms, each with its own sovereignty, and territorial integrity and ruled by different kings, before the arrival of European colonialists. The British were the first to combine the three kingdoms under one
administration in 1833. On independence in 1948, the British handed the entire island to the majority nation, the Sinhalese.
The Tamil war of liberation concerns the right of Tamils to exist on the island as equals, with Justice and Dignity.
Since independence the Sinhalese have dominated politics and the economy, controlling Tamils militarily and discriminating against, and committing human rights abuses against them.
Till 1956 Tamils opted to live in a united country with the Sinhalese. Then they were prepared to live in one country under one federal system. It was in 1976 (28 years after independence) that they wanted to separate because of continuous abuse.
The Tamils have a distinct language and territory, over 5,000 years of history, and their own religion and culture, fulfilling the requirement to nationhood.
Would it not be better for the two nations to live in peace on the island, rather than having two nations at war?
Tamil homeland designated in the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987
Background Independence from Colonial rule When the first colonial power came to Ceylon in the 1505, there were three separate kingdoms in the country. The Portuguese first conquered the maritime
Sinhalese Kingdom and, more than 100 years later, the Tamil Kingdom. The Dutch took over from the Portuguese, and
eventually the British took over from the Dutch. The first British Colonial Secretary to visit Ceylon wrote the much quoted
Cleghorn Minute in 1799, which describes the people living in the country and the boundaries of their places of habitation.
Sinhalese historian Paul E. Peiris has said that when Vijaya, the mythical founder of the Sinhalese race, came to Ceylon, Tamils
were already there, and referred to the existence of five ancient Hindu temples or in various parts of the country.
It was in 1815 that the British conquered the Sinhalese Kandyan Kingdom. All three colonial powers The Sinhalese as well as the Tamils, have all the attributes of Britain granted independence to Ceylon in 1948 and implemented a unitary Constitution with a second chamber (the Senate), Section 29 which gave a modicum of protection to minorities, and appeals to the Privy Council of Britain against decisions of the Supreme Court of Ceylon. The Westminster type of
firstpast-the-post voting system gave the Sinhalese, with 74% of the population of the island, an in-built majority in Parliament.
One of the first initiatives of the independent government was the Citizenship Act, under which almost a million Indian-origin Tamils* lost their citizenship, resulting in the reduction of Tamil representation in Parliament by Eeswarams
* The Tamil community is made up of Tamils who have lived in the North East for thousands of years and Tamils brought in the 1800s by the British to work on the tea & rubber plantations of the central highlands. administered the three Kingdoms separately until, in 1833, they were united under one administration by
the British for their convenience.
nations or peoples, which, according to the covenants of the
United Nations, have the right to self-determination.
about 40%.
Robert Knox’s 1681 map of Ceylon showing three separate kingdoms.
Sinhala hegemony Directly after independence the Sinhalese started exercising their control in everysphere of activity. Discrimination in employment, education, development , and state-assisted colonization of the Tamil homelands by Sinhalese became
state policy.
Discrimination and efforts to change the demography of the Tamil
areas continue to this day. The Sinhalese population in the Eastern Province, an important part of the Tamil homeland, a little over 4 % in 1924, is currently estimated to be over 30% and growing due to the latest maneuvers. Tamils make up 12% of the island’s population, but hold only 5% of government jobs.
Tamils tried to get redress after independence by democratic and parliamentary methods, as well as by Gandhian satyagraha [non-violent protest].
Over the years Tamils have regularly been the victims of pogroms by Sinhalese hoodlums either aided by, or watched in silence by the armed forces, who are 99% Sinhalese and the police who are 95% Sinhalese.
Tamils first tried to live together in a unitary form of government with the Sinhalese community. When the Federal Party stood for
After much discrimination and oppression, Tamils voted overwhelmingly for the Federal Party in 1956. Two parliamentarians who stood for separation in that election were soundly beaten.
This was followed by islandwide pogroms against Tamils in 1956 and 1958. The Prime Minister described the permanent posting of the armed forces in the North East after 1960 as an The national flag was chosen with a prominent Sinhala lion and the national anthem is in Sinhalese.
Two pacts to provide autonomy to the Tamil areas, signed between the Tamil Federal Party and the Sinhala party in power at that time, were abrogated unilaterally by the respective governments following protests by the Sinhala party in opposition in 1957 and 1965.
In 1972 a new constitution was enacted without Tamil participation. The new constitution made the country a Republic, made Buddhism the foremost religion and eliminated the Senate, appeals to the Privy Council, and Section 29 which had given some protection to minorities.
Due to their inability to obtain any redress, and continued discrimination and numerous anti-Tamil pogroms, elections in 1952,
Tamils overwhelmingly voted for the Tamil Congress which supported a
unitary state. At that time, therefore, Tamils preferred a Federal form of government to separation.
In 1956 a bill to make Sinhalese the only official language of the country was passed in parliament over Tamil protests.
‘army of occupation.’
in 1976 all Tamil parties joined together and passed a resolution asking their Parliamentarians to seek the formation of a separate Tamil state in the Homelands of the earlier Tamil Kingdoms.
This was the Tamil people’s mandate to their representatives.
At the next elections in 1977, and ever since then, this mandate has not been changed.
Due to their inability to obtain any redress, and continued discrimination and numerous anti-Tamil pogroms, in 1976 all Tamil parties joined together and passed a resolution asking their Parliamentarians to seek the formation of a separate Tamil state in the Homelands of the earlier Tamil Kingdoms.
This was the Tamil people’s mandate to their representatives. At the next elections in 1977, and ever since then, this mandate has not been changed.
The Government enacted a new Constitution in 1978 creating an allpowerful executive president. Again the Tamil representatives did not participate in the constitution’s drafting. President Jayawardena said that under this constitution he had the power to do anything except change a man into a woman.
He also introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act, described by
International Jurist Paul Seigart as the worst act of its kind in the world, including apartheid South Africa.
The majority Sinhalese government passed the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution in 1983 which made even speaking of separation an
offence. Following this, any reference to the Government of Sri
Lanka refers to the Sinhala majority government. The Tamil representatives in Parliament went into exile in India.
The years that followed have made life intolerable for the Tamils of the island with the security forces doing whatever they want with impunity .The country has been under emergency rule for most of the time since the early 1980s, with almost unlimited powers given to the security forces to terrorise and subjugate the Tamils.
A third of the Tamil population has fled the island and another third have been displaced from their homes, often many times. A hundred thousand Tamils have been killed or disappeared. The Tamil areas are now the poorest on the island and are ruled by military or ex-military governors with the help of the armed forces.
The UK’s Daily Telegraph quoted Pres. Jayawardene as having
said “I do not care what the Tamils think, but my Sinhalese
people will be happy.”
Sri Lankan Tamil refugees arriving in India 2007.
State-sponsored colonization for demographic change
Anti-Tamil pogroms Successive Sinhalese governments have carried out demographic changes in the Tamil homelands at will and the Tamils have not had the political power to prevent such abuse. State-aided colonization of Tamil areas has settled Sinhalese in newly irrigated lands and also in lands from which they have
ethnically cleansed Tamils and Muslims.
Settlements have been specifically placed between the Northern and Eastern provinces of the Tamil homeland to break up the contiguity between them.
Names of places and streets are being changed to Sinhalese names, new Buddhist temples are being built and new Buddha statues erected.
Gerrymandering of areas colonized by Sinhalese has significantly reduced Tamil representation in parliament.
Large areas in the North East have been declared High Security Zones, including a third of the agricultural area in the Jaffna Peninsula, and almost the entire coastline of a community whose main protein source is fish. Restrictions on movement, agriculture, fishing and commerce, along with corruption by the occupying army and the destruction of war have reduced the economy of the North East to a shadow. The population survives on remittances from family
members abroad.
In the run-up to her first presidential elections Chandrika Kumaratunga catalogued the problems faced by Tamils and said “so much so, that almost 800,000 Tamils left the country as external refugees and over a million remain as internal refuges displaced a multiple number of times “. This number is quite a big percentage of the around three million indigenous Tamils.
Since then, more of the same has happened. Abductions, torture, rape, killings, disappearances, carpet bombing and shelling from the seas have become part of the life of Tamils. These abuses have been carried out with impunity by members of the armed forces, special task forces, police, home guards and pliant paramilitary
forces.
It was after anti-Tamil pogroms 1956,1958,1961,1974, 1977, 1979, 1981 and the pogrom of genocidal proportions of 1983 that the Eelam War started. July 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom in which 4,000 died & 95% of Tamil industrial property destroyed.
Tamil aspirations Terrorism or freedom struggle?
At the India-sponsored talks in Thimpu, Bhutan in 1985, all Tamil militants groups and all Tamil political parties jointly spelt out their aspirations openly. If there is to be a solution,
(a) Recognize Tamils as a nation.
(b) Recognize the concept of a Tamil homeland and
(c) Recognize the right to self-determination of the Tamils.
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, introduced after the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 that recognized the existence of the Tamil homeland and provided some autonomy for the provinces, has still
not been implemented in full. The merger of the Northern Province with the Eastern Province has recently been declared invalid by a pliant Supreme Court. In addition, Tamil may have been declared
an ‘official’ language, but the policy has not been implemented in practice.
Tamil youth took to arms in the late 1970s to –
A. Liberate their homeland in keeping with the mandate given by the people.
B. To fight against state terrorism.
Of the civilian deaths thus far, it is widely acknowledged that 95 % have been Tamils killed by the armed forces or their paramilitary proxies.
anything short of that will never be acceptable.
The Thimpu Principles are:
It is incorrect to brand these youth as the terrorists in this conflict.
Tamil IDPs July 2008.One third of the Tamil population are IDPs, another third have fled overseas.
Throughout the centuries, liberation fighters have been fighting for freedom, including George Washington. History is replete with
It was Patrick Henry of Virginia who first said “Give me freedom or give me death.”
It suits the Government (GoSL) to brand Tamil freedom fighters as terrorists, particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on US targets by Al Qaeda. The GoSL has wasted no time in demonizing their antagonists and has deceived the international community with false propaganda and downright lies.
We all think we know what democracy is. Is it not democracy when a people almost unanimously decide to be free and get back their land that they lost to colonial rulers?
The GoSL tries to persuade the world that they are a democratically elected government, but If the island had been a homogeneous
country, a party in power at one time could be voted out, and be in the opposition and vice versa. In a heterogeneous country such as Sri Lanka, Sinhalese representatives are elected democratically by the Sinhalese Nation (people) and, similarly, the Tamil representatives are elected democratically by the Tamil Nation (people).
Tasked with finding a solution to the ‘ethnic conflict,’ today’s APRC is representative only in name. The major Tamil party with 22 Parliamentarians was not even invited to participate. At best, the APRC is a Committee of Parliamentarians of the Southern parties. The Committee’s report has been postponed numerous times. Few expect recommendations that will be productive or original, and consider the APRC another in a long line of attempts to cover up efforts at a military solution with a political fig leaf. Under pressure people who were first called terrorists, and later ‘His Excellency.’
Their fight is to allow the Tamil people to exercise their political rights within their traditional homeland.
the Parliament of Sri Lanka has and will always have a permanent Sinhalese majority.
Because of the population of the two communities, there can never be a Tamil president, prime minister or commander of the military.
Tamil fighters are freedom fighters, not terrorists.
Democracy or majority rule?
All Party Representative Committee
They are not asking for one inch of territory outside of the Tamil
Homelands and have not threatened any international interest.
from India in 2008, the President set up another All Party Conference with the same goal and again excluding the main Tamil party. Requests for peace talks, whether from the GoSL or other countries are purely cosmetic. What is there to negotiate?
Many clauses of the 2002 Cease-Fire Agreement, and other agreements
reached with this government and the previous one were never implemented.
Would the talks be based on the Interim Self-Governing Authority submitted by the freedom fighters and the counter-proposal of the previous government, or will this government give a new outline of what any talks will be based on?
In the last few decades, several new countries have been established, such as East Timor, Kosovo, the Czech and Slovak republics, Eritrea, Bangladesh, and the many successor states to the Soviet Union. Seventy countries have less people and 60 countries less land area than the proposed state of Eelam.
Anyone interested in the figures of the latest casualties, human rights violations, rapes, forced disappearances, abductions, killings, etc. of the Tamil community can get the information provided by the Tamil Center for Human Rights of Paris to the sixth UN Human Rights Commission meetings in Geneva.
www.sangam.org
December, 2008
Further topics forthcoming.
Future Peace Talks and Negotiations
Two States in Peace instead of One State at War On what basis will there be any talks or negotiations? Tamils should know that before starting negotiations.
N.B.
If the talks are to impose the GoSL’s solution on a weakened Tamil people, one could forget about progress occurring. It is essential to hold talks, if any, under the auspices of an international organization or major country which should guarantee any decisions made.
Tamils want Justice, and total Equality in every respect, with Dignity.
If Tamils cannot have such rights, they would want a separate sovereign country.
Association of Sri Lankan Tamils in the USA Sangam!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
