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..
Sunday, December 28, 2008
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)
