Mawbima News

A leaked confidential US diplomatic cable written by the US Embassy Colombo has raised queries about the correct nature of the drama staged by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) when they left the Chandrika Kumaratunga led coalition government.

At that time the JVP mentioned that they had quit in protest at government&#8217s plans for a tsunami aid deal with the LTTE which could assist efforts to set up a Tamil state.

According to a leaked US diplomatic cable, the US Embassy Colombo informed Washington &#8220Vijitha Herath, the JVP Minister of Culture and National Heritage, complained to us that President Chandrika Kumaratunga was ignoring his party&#8217s recommendations to create a multipartisan consultative mechanism to inform the reconstruction process. Rather, he charged, she had appointed Ministers and celebration members&#8211some of whom are not even MPs&#8211from her own Sri Lankan Freedom Celebration (SLFP) to all decision-creating positions. Not a single JVP Minister or MP occupied any crucial position, Herath said, even even though numerous represent tsunami-affected districts.&#8221

The Colombo Telegraph located the associated leaked cable from the WikiLeaks database. The “Confidential” cable is signed by the US Ambassador to Colombo Jeffrey J. Lunstead on February 15, 2005.

The ambassador wrote &#8220The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the Government&#8217s contentious coalition companion, boycotted the February 9 Parliamentary debate on tsunami reconstruction. The JVP leadership cited dissatisfaction with the minor function the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) has assigned it in reconstruction organizing as the purpose for their absence. The JVP was the only no-show at the lively debate. Even MPs from the pro-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) Tamil National Alliance (TNA), who have regularly accused the GSL of brief-changing Tamil areas in the distribution of help, took part.&#8221

Ambassador Lunstead wrote &#8220He accused the President and other SLFP leaders of utilizing the effectively-funded reconstruction method to serve their own private and political agendas. When asked why JVP leaders deemed it greater to boycott the debate than to argue their issues ahead of Parliament, Herath responded that folks might mistakenly assume, since the JVP is part of the government, that it endorses GSL reconstruction plans. Since the JVP had not been consulted in any of the crucial choices, &#8220we can&#8217t take responsibility&#8221&#8211or blame&#8211for how the method unfolds, he emphasized. By not taking component in the debate, the party hoped to make that distinction clear to the common  public, he indicated.&#8221

&#8220The JVP&#8217s therapy is especially unfair in light of its energetic efforts to aid those impacted by the tsunami, Herath asserted, adding that the celebration has raised practically $ 12 million on its own at property and abroad. This aid is being distributed  to all affected communities, he continued. The LTTE fears that JVP philanthropic activities in the east will enhance the celebration&#8217s popularity there, specifically among Tamils, Herath claimed, and has therefore fabricated stories about the JVP hijacking help intended for Tamil communities. (Note: Jayantha Wijesekera, the Tamil-speaking, rabble-rousing JVP MP for Trincomalee, told us that the LTTE is especially concerned about his appeal and has therefore threatened him on many occasions.) When  asked how the JVP viewed possible GSL/LTTE cooperation on tsunami relief, Herath repeated the normal JVP line: Cooperation is all proper in principle as extended as the Tigers do not take benefit of it&#8211which, of course, he implied, they will&#8221 he additional wrote.

Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) has urged the United Nations to refer Sri Lanka to International Criminal Court (ICC) or to establish a related international judicial mechanism for investigation and prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed against the Tamil people by the Sri Lankan State.

“We firmly believe that neither a domestic mechanism nor a hybrid mechanism will meet out justice to the Tamil people” stated the Prime Minister of Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran.

“The contact by the new Sri Lankan government for a domestic or hybrid mechanism to replace any international judicial process is an try to deflect the contact for the referral to ICC and to delay any meaningful actions on accountability. Efforts to establish a domestic Truth and Reconciliation Commission is one more diversionary tactic to protect those committed international crimes against Tamils.” he mentioned.

Issuing a statement nowadays the TGTE mentioned &#8220The current scenario in Sri Lanka constitutes an ongoing &#8216threat to the peace&#8217 beneath Chapter 7 Post 39 due to the fact there has been completely no accountability for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

1) The Sri Lankan State is not ethnically neutral: In fact, most of the severe crimes in query were perpetrated by the state apparatus. For example: &#8216Between September 2008 and 19 Might 2009, the Sri Lankan Army sophisticated its military campaign into the Vanni using large-scale and widespread shelling, causing big numbers of civilian deaths.&#8217 Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Authorities on Sri Lanka, 31 March 2011.

2) The Sri Lankan judiciary is not ethnically neutral: From the mass killings of Tamils beginning in 1958 to date, justice has not been served. The courts have proved inadequate and successive governments have appointed ineffective inquiries under international stress that have not when led to the punishment of perpetrators. (Amnesty International, &#8216Twenty Years of Make Believe: Sri Lanka’s Commissions of Inquiry,&#8217 11 June 2009).

3) There is no political will in Sri Lanka to offer justice for the Tamils.

&#8220The domestic 2010 Lessons Discovered and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) has not delivered Justice to Tamils: &#8216…the LLRC is deeply flawed, does not meet international standards for an efficient accountability mechanism.&#8217 UN Secretary General’s Panel of Expert’s Report on Accountability in Sri Lanka (March 31, 2011).

&#8220The involvement of the international neighborhood in overseeing a domestic inquiry also ended up in failure, when the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) resigned in March 2008. (Human Rights Watch &#8211 Sri Lanka: Domestic Inquiry into Abuses a Smokescreen &#8211 October 27, 2009).

&#8220&#8216International monitoring of an internal investigation is a waste of time&#8217 noted a memorandum handed over to the UN last week by the Jaffna University Professors in Sri Lanka.

&#8220It is crucial to note that, modify of guard in Sri Lanka will not result in the change of institutionalized impunity. Even though the President has been changed, the political environment vis-à-vis Tamils, has not changed.

&#8220Almost all the leaders of the current Government had been leaders of earlier governments when repeated killings of Tamils in big numbers took location and these leaders not only failed to safeguard the Tamils but blocked any attempts to bring the perpetrators to justice.

&#8220Importantly, the current President Mr. Sirisena is potentially culpable for crimes committed even though he served as the acting Defense Minister during the period at the finish of the war, when big number of Tamils have been killed. According the Economist Magazine edition on January 3rd, 2015 &#8216Sirisena is hardly a beacon of hope for the Tamils: he was acting as defense minister in the nightmarish final fortnight of the war.&#8217

&#8220Additionally, the presences of a number of former military personal, like the military commander at the end of the war Basic Fonseka, are in senior positions in the present government. This along with existing president’s possible culpability will have significant effect on neutrality and effectiveness of any domestic or hybrid mechanisms.

&#8220The truth is that the military apparatus from the war is nonetheless intact and the Tamil places in the North-East are heavily militarized, producing deep fear among Tamils, so it is unlikely that victims / witnesses will come forward prior to a domestic or hybrid tribunal.

&#8220To Highlight the Urgency of this referral TGTE have initiated a one particular Million Signature Campaign to get worldwide assistance from distinct nationalities. The appeal is to be translated in 15 languages.&#8221

By Jude Fernando –

Against Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Ageism, and Ableism: Sri Lanka Demands a Ministry of Inclusion and Diversity &#8211 Component I

The myth of integration as propounded beneath the banner of the liberal ideology have to be cracked due to the fact it makes men and women think that one thing is being achieved when in reality the artificially integrated circles are a soporific to the blacks although saving the consciences of the handful of guilt-stricken whites. &#8211 Steve Biko

It’s just like when you’ve got some coffee that’s too black, which signifies it is as well sturdy. What do you do? You integrate it with cream, you make it weak. But if you pour too considerably cream in it, you will not even know you ever had coffee. It utilised to be hot, it becomes cool. It employed to be robust, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it puts you to sleep &#8211  Malcolm X

“We grow to be not a melting pot but a stunning mosaic. Different folks, various beliefs, distinct yearnings, diverse hopes, various dreams.”- Jimmy Carter

What does it imply to be a human in a multicultural society such as Sri Lanka, a nation comprised of groups with culturally, historically, and territorially distinct identities, and with a history of contentious relations among them? This ought to be the central question for all efforts to generate excellent governance (Yahapalanya) and domestic mechanisms of accountability and reconciliation. Here, I applaud President Maithripala Sirisena strategy to eradicate corruption and formulate a code of conduct for Parliamentarians his recognition in his Independence Day speech (unprecedented in the history of such speeches given that Independence) of the failures of the reconciliation approach, and his guarantee to rectify them.

The President’s efforts will succeed only if he supplements them with a extensive broad-based plan to develop a culture of inclusive governance by establishing a specific ‘mindset’ – a critical awareness of, and basic changes in the way society thinks about race, gender, age, physical capacity, and sexuality. Why do we want to engage in such a reassessment? Basically put, they shape our identities and relationships that inform our perceptions of the root causes of sexism, homophobia, ableism ageism, and racism that produce and reinforce social stereotypes, oppressive power differentials, prejudice, discrimination and violence. These are also major sources of xenophobia and conspiracy theories that survived the previous regime and continue to threaten the stability of the present regime, and prevent society from productive engagement with the domestic social, financial, political troubles and international concerns with regards to the country’s human rights abuses.

Arguably, these ignorant of and complicit with racism, sexism and homophobia are probably to hero-worship these leaders who uphold such negative attributes and do not have qualms about getting them holding essential leadership positions in society. Without addressing these instruments of domination, the existing or any future governments can’t expect to fulfill its guarantee of good governance, stability, and reconciliation.   We cannot take for granted the meanings and social functions of race, gender, and sexuality as fixed in time and location. They are in a continual approach of becoming, therefore, they warrant reassessment of their social impacts. This is a multi-pronged, multi-layered procedure that should occur at the person and institutional levels in each and every community within the nation.

To this end, I propose a new Ministry of Inclusion and Diversity (MID). The MID must replace the redundant Ministry of National Languages and Social Integration (MLSI). The MNLSI lacked a clear vision and technique. It lacked clarity as to the which means of integration with respect to the specific realities of Sri Lanka’s multicultural society. Its narrow concentrate on ethnicity and language, and the ways in which it conflated integration with multiculturalism, created it irrelevant to the lives of its citizens and assist the post-war reconciliation, excellent governance, and transitional justice efforts. The MNLS functioned as a smokescreen for the Rajapaksa regime to disguise its prejudicial and discriminatory ethnonationalist and national safety policies that endangered post-war transitional justice and peaceful coexistence of distinct cultural communities of the nation.

With out a clear vision of multiculturalism, the MNLS failed to have any influence on schools, university curricula, oversees government ministries and administrative agencies to make sure they function in a manner that respects diversity and inclusion. Misunderstanding its goal due to nepotism, and the resulting failure to access the needed intellectual capacities and skilled persons, the MNLSI wasted public funds (for instance, placing up trilingual posters all through the country), rather than mainstreaming multiculturalism within government agencies, Ministries (Justice in distinct), and public educational and cultural institutions.^[1] It is the job of the Urban Improvement and Road Improvement Authorities who is responsible to place Trilingual sign posts in public locations. The job of the MID would be to supplying the ‘software’ (rather than the ‘hardware’) required to mainstream multiculturalism in National and Neighborhood Governance administrative system of Sri Lanka.

The MID ought to develop an official policy of multiculturalism – as articulated in the Multicultural National Vision for Peace in Sri Lanka (Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake et al 2001).^[two] Darini’s articulation of multiculturalism is deeply rooted in the situations of Sri Lanka. It is about fostering and enabling equality, justice, equal opportunity. It seeks access for all, by way of a mutual understanding and respect for those coexisting in the mosaic of cultures that is Sri Lanka, and establishing a cosmopolitan citizenship. It is about freeing society’s pursuit of freedom, equality and justice from prejudice and discrimination. It is not about imposing integration and assimilation, as envisaged by a lot of states, like Sri Lanka, but generating a totally free and dynamic environment for various communities to evolve and coexist without having compromising social and environmental justice.

The multiculturalism I am proposing is not British Prime Minister David Cameron’s ‘muscular liberalism,’ which would dismantle ‘state multiculturalism.’ Muscular liberalism is a security driven paradigm to address the insecurities and vulnerabilities brought about by the state driven multicultural policies. It is about securitization of multicultural societies driven by worldwide national safety and anti-terrorism paradigms. Taken in the context of present ethnic relations, this could lead to the ‘suspicion, surveillance and repression’ of certain groups. Muscular liberalism’s advocacy for “the values of equality, law and freedom of speech across all components of society” is not an adequate response to racism targeted against particular groups that exist in everyday society. It rejects the state driven multiculturalism that “encouraged distinct cultures to reside separate lives, apart from every other and apart from the mainstream.”

The target of Cameron’s speech was undoubtedly Muslims, and it appeared far more like a counter terrorism approach that confuses national integration with multiculturalism. Muscular liberalism is an ‘authoritarian articulation of shared values’ that defies the acknowledgement and acceptance of what Charles Taylor calls “the plurality of techniques for citizens to belong to their country.” It forces integration predicated on a superficial sense of belonging without creating a space to deal with pre-existing racial tensions, prejudices, and discrimination exacerbated by escalating financial inequalities and the reduction of state investments in social improvement.

David Miliband, former British Foreign Secretary points out “David Cameron&#8217s &#8216muscular liberalism&#8217 has small to offer you in providing greater sense of security for those who really feel discriminated and alienated from society. The threat is that substantial numbers in this group leapfrog to latent hostility or active enmity.”^[three] Pitting muscular liberalism against multiculturalism is a recipe for inciting extremist responses to discrimination, which could at some point undermine national safety. The apparent shortcomings of muscular liberalism, in fact, make a stronger case for multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism advocated here is not opposed to integration, nor is it a recipe to encourage separation amongst cultures. Rather, it is about inclusion and diversity within a larger cultural mosaic that consists of justice and equality. Multiculturalism entails the recognition of, respect for, appreciation, and tolerance of cultural diversity and differences in ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, age, national origin, disability, education, and religion. Inclusion calls for that all individuals be valued and respected as human beings worthy of dignity. This will ensure equal chance. The concept here is to produce not only procedural and administrative changes, but also a culture that is not fearful of engaging with distinction and diversity, or difficult stereotypes, and a single that will not scapegoat minorities.

The multiculturalism advocated right here, starts with human rights and human security, whereas integration starts with crises that arise rights and safety of the nation. It is not about regulating and managing the variations between diverse groups, but rather, producing an awareness of prejudices and injustice, and creating solidarity against them, with the hope that individuals will embrace laws and administrative structures of inclusion and diversity voluntarily, and meaningfully. Nor is multiculturalism synonymous with integration or assimilation of various cultures, as typically understood. It is about remaking of the national identity (and “national story”) in which fear, prejudice, and discrimination do not undermine the scope for various individuals and groups maintain their distinctive person and collective identities.   Multiculturalism imagines national identity as a cultural mosaic with diverse rather than single dominant culture and history. Multiculturalism is a process that could quite nicely open the possibilities for meaningful integration and assimilation and pave the way for cosmopolitan national identity.

Responsible multiculturalism does not endorse a benign celebration of diversity or the rejection of all universal norms, rules, or truths. Nor is it a signifies to enable those who violate these universal norms to exploit cultural diversity (cultural relativism) to escape accountability and justice. It also does not endorse rabid secularism, which I contemplate hypocritical and counter-productive to the humanistic ambitions of multiculturalism advocated right here. Anti-theistic and anti-religious secular multiculturalism could turn out to be an additional form of prejudice and discrimination when it turns against these with firm religious beliefs, and fails to provide a space for the potential of religion to play in freeing part in society. Multiculturalism is not a panacea for curing the ills of secularism. As G.K. Chesterton noted, secularists’ contradict themselves and undermine their own position when they deny equal spot for religion that they provide for secular worldviews and ideologies. In a genuinely multicultural globe, tensions between the secular and religious are blurred by way of negotiation as they are provided equal space to strive to totally free themselves from the prejudices and discrimination that are inherent to them and the larger society.

Sri Lankans have too typically viewed diversity and multicultural policies as threats to, rather than possibilities for the nation, or its culture. Amongst ultra-nationalist fears that cultural diversity will destroy the unitary nation-state on the 1 hand, and empty ‘celebrations of diversity’ on the other, we require a effectively-articulated national multiculturalism policy framework to market inclusion, value diversity, and provide equal chance for all – people, communities, and social groups. Post-war Sri Lanka wants to engage with cultural diversity head on. We need to face the shameful elements of our own past, as well as present prejudices and discomfort with cultural diversity, and challenge assumptions about race, sexuality, gender, disability, and age, to foster private and collective duty in daily practice and attain genuine reconciliation.

Thus, the MID should be tasked with building a effectively-articulated national vision and policy framework for multiculturalism to promote not only equal opportunity for individuals and groups who have suffered systemic marginalization, but also post-war reconciliation. This would call for education, the education of educators, and the mainstreaming of concepts and practices aimed at promoting inclusion, and valuing cultural diversity in national institutions, the private sector, and society. The MID need to also seek to set standards and operate collaboratively with governmental ministries and departments to make certain equal opportunity in state institutions, and compliance, monitoring, and evaluation at all layers of governance, like via mandatory instruction. The multiculturalism policy framework would aim to create an empowering environment to guarantee the essential situations for folks and groups to attain their complete potential, without having getting subject to discrimination and prejudice, by way of education and the media.

Compared to numerous other countries, Sri Lanka is trailing in addressing these root causes of discrimination, prejudice and violence. In this regard, Sri Lanka is an anomaly when 1 considers it’s an impressive good results in related areas of the social welfare state, higher literacy, and common friendliness toward progressive social policies. For the duration of the war and its aftermath, we have observed a backtracking or stagnation of the progress the country has created since Independence &#8211 the gap in between superficial and substantive changes have widened.

Component II of this series will explore the reasons for Sri Lanka’s slow progress and setbacks in addressing these root causes of prejudice and discrimination.

*To be continued ..

---

&nbsp

^[1] https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/copa-exposes-misappropriations-in-vasus-ministry/#comments

^[two] Senanayaka, Darini, ((2001) Identity on the Borderline: Multicultural History in a Moment of Danger, Colombo: Marga Institute.

^[three] http://news.ucajournalism.com/2011/02/28/david-mili/

By Dayan Jayatilleka –

Chief Minister Wigneswaran attempted to clarify away the Northern Provincial Council’s ‘Genocide’ Resolution by saying it was not directed against the present administration but rather against its predecessor. He was not telling the truth, to put it mildly. The Resolution has a distinct target and that target is unveiled in the quite title. The Resolution goes into the record under the title “Sri Lanka’s Genocide Against Tamils”. Thus the charge is not against Mahinda Rajapaksa—not that this would have created it right—but against Sri Lanka. It is Sri Lanka, the country—our country—that stands accused. It stands accused of ‘genocide’. Any reference to the previous administration appears in these sections dealing with ‘recent genocide’, even though every single section on ‘recent genocide’ is preceded with one on ‘historic genocide’.

What is the pith and substance of the resolution? There is no space for confusion. It says:

“This resolution gives an overview of the evidence demonstrating successive Sri Lankan governments’ genocide against Tamils, and respectfully requests the ongoing United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) to investigate the claim of genocide and advocate suitable investigations and prosecutions by the International Criminal Court. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Genocide Convention) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9th December, 1948, and acceded to by Sri Lanka in 1950, and supplies:

In the present Convention, genocide implies any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in complete or in element, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group (b) Causing severe bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group situations of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in complete or in part (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (e) Forcibly transferring young children of the group to an additional group.

Even though the OISL investigation is a time-bound work focused on February 2002 – November 2011, Sri Lanka’s genocide against Tamils began with the island’s independence. Since then, Tamils across Sri Lanka, specifically in the historical Tamil homeland of the NorthEast, have been subject to gross and systematic human rights violations, culminating in the mass atrocities committed in 2009. Sri Lanka’s historic violations consist of over 60 years of state-sponsored anti-Tamil pogroms, massacres, sexual violence, and acts of cultural and linguistic destruction perpetrated by the state. These atrocities have been perpetrated with the intent to destroy the Tamil people, and therefore constitute genocide.

This Council is of opinion that during the period extending from 1948, when the Citizenship Act was passed to strip citizenship from a segment of the Tamil neighborhood and render them stateless, and continuing via the present day, successive Sri Lankan governments have perpetrated genocide against Tamils. In depth proof demonstrates that acts have been committed that constitute 4 of the 5 enumerated genocidal acts in the Genocide Convention…” (p.1)

The resolution passed by the Northern Provincial Council solemnly locations our nation, Sri Lanka, in the organization of Hitler’s Germany, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia.

“…This Council notes that the spread of false rumors to incite violence against a group is a hallmark of genocides all through history, such as in Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia. The Sri Lankan government has utilised false rumors as 1 tool in organizing Sinhalese mobs to commit genocide against Tamils.” (p.3)

The Resolution accuses Sri Lanka of committing “cultural genocide” against the Tamils.

“…The governments of Sri Lanka also committed acts of cultural genocide, beginning on June 5, 1956, when the S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike government passed the Sinhala Only Act, or the Official Language Act, which replaced English with Sinhala, spoken by 70% of the population at the time, as the sole official language. This act failed to officially recognize Tamil in any capacity. In the 1st republican constitution of 1972, Buddhism was privileged “at the foremost place” among religions in the constitutions. Though the term “cultural genocide” does not seem in Genocide Convention, it was incorporated in the initial draft, and international criminal tribunals have found acts of cultural and linguistic destruction to constitute acts of genocide. The Sinhala Only Act and the privileging of Buddhism undermine the Tamil people’s language and religion, predominantly Hindu.” (p.5)

The Resolution states that the Sri Lanka sought to physically eliminate the Tamils in the same manner as in Rwanda. One particular of the strategies by which this Rwanda–style “physical destruction”, albeit in slow motion, defined as “slow death genocide”, was sought to be effected, was by way of – wait for it—university admissions policy.

“…Moreover, according to international criminal jurisprudence from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the term “physical destruction” “should be construed as the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not instantly kill the members of the group, but which, in the end, seek their physical destruction,” which would “include, inter alia, subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet regime, systematic expulsion from properties and the reduction of important medical services below minimum requirement”. By pushing Tamils out of the workforce and rendering them financially insecure, the Sinhala Only Act and university admissions standardization ultimately aimed to destroy the Tamil group at least in element by way of a “slow death genocide.” This Council additional notes that during the war, the government imposed prolonged blockades against humanitarian aid and embargos on needed goods, stopping fundamental goods and supplies from reaching the NorthEast.” (p.7)

Did you know that a military blockade is nonetheless in location against ‘Tamil areas’, causing the “historical impoverishment and isolation of the Tamil community”? Note the despicable use of the present tense, and the open-endedness, in the phrase “has been in place since 1990”.

“A military blockade against Tamil places has been in spot considering that 1990, except for ceasefire periods, which has contributed to the historical impoverishment and isolation of the Tamil neighborhood. The blockade has prevented ordinary products such as standard medicine, school books, cement, gasoline, candles, and chocolate from getting into Tamil regions. For the duration of certain periods of the ethnic conflict, the military adopted a harsher stance, and blocked all humanitarian help intended for civilians.” (p.7)

According to the Resolution, the genocide is ongoing: “To this day, Tamils in the NorthEast suffer from Sri Lanka’s ongoing genocide …There has been no change in the oppressive level of militarization in the NorthEast with the election of Maithripala Sirisena…” (p.11)

So what’s the bottom line? What does the Northern Provincial Council, its Chief Minister Wigneswaran and by extension the Tamil National Alliance which has failed to denounce the resolution and whose most moderate member justifies it entirely, wish to be accomplished with – and to—this nation, Sri Lanka? What is sought to be carried out? What is the agenda? There is no area for confusion on this score.

“…Resolved that the obligation to prevent and punish genocide under the Genocide Convention is not a matter of political selection or calculation, but one particular of binding customary international law. This Council urges OISL to comprehensively investigate and report on the charge of genocide in its 11 submission to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2015. The UN Security Council need to refer the circumstance in Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court for prosecutions primarily based on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Alternatively or concurrently, domestic courts in nations that may possibly exercise universal jurisdiction over the alleged events and perpetrators, which includes but not limited to the United States, must prosecute these crimes.

To this day, Tamils in the NorthEast endure from Sri Lanka’s ongoing genocide…There has been no adjust in the oppressive level of militarization in the NorthEast with the election of Maithripala Sirisena…This Council urgently calls upon the international neighborhood to develop situations suitable and sustainable to defend the Tamils of the NorthEast Provinces in Sri Lanka from genocide.

The case of genocide in Sri Lanka is exclusive among genocides in history since it occurred over numerous decades and beneath various governments before intensifying into a no holds-barred war for almost 3 decades and culminating in the mass atrocities of 2009. It is accordingly important that Sri Lanka’s historic violations against Tamils, in addition to the 2009 attacks, are addressed via an international mechanism in order to combat Sri Lanka’s institutionalized impunity. This international intervention, coupled with action to promote the respect of human rights, is required to make certain a sustainable future for self-determination, peace, and justice, in Sri Lanka and for the Tamil folks.” (p. 11)

So that is what the elected representatives of the Northern Provincial Council and their Chief Minister, consider of the nation in which they reside, function, do politics and pontificate in. It is a country in which genocide is ongoing a country which has perpetrated and is perpetrating genocide.

What do they want? They want to put the charge of genocide foursquare on the international agenda. They want Sri Lanka to be prosecuted. The charge is against “Sri Lanka”—the nation this nation our nation. They want “international intervention” –their term, not mine—to avert (ongoing) genocide against the Tamils.

It is not only the provincial representatives who think so. The moderate Mr. MA Sumanthiran, poster boy of Colombo’s cosmopolitan civil society, completely justifies the Genocide resolution. He also indicates the opportunities that will open up with the institution of a ‘domestic mechanism’ into accountability, with the “supervision” of the OHCHR, the Workplace of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Taken collectively with the genocide resolution and Mr. Sumanthiran’s endorsement of it, there can be tiny doubt that the ‘domestic mechanism’ proposed by the new UNP administration will open the space for creating the charge of genocide stick, and infiltrating into the Higher Commissioner’s report and hence the international agenda, firstly in Geneva. Excerpts from the Ceylon Right now interview given to Ananth Palakidnar comply with:

“The Tamil National Alliance Parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran, defending the NPC&#8217s genocide resolution as democratic and timely, emphasized on the need for the war victims to prepare themselves to collect more proof in order to strengthen the OHCRC&#8217s OISL report to be released in September this year. He also added that an internal investigation with the OHCR&#8217s supervision, as opposed to the neighborhood investigations in the past, is essential to guarantee a constructive UN investigation into the alleged war crimes in the country.

Q: What is your view on the current &#8216genocide resolution&#8217 passed by the Northern Provincial Council?

A: The resolution is timely and the facts which have been listed out in it are practically nothing but accurate. It was a sheer democratic action and really nicely drafted, taking into consideration the grievances of the people straight impacted by the war. Numerous comments could surface with regard to the resolution, but it was aimed at looking for justice for the individuals who have been impacted by the ruthless war in the North. The Chief Minister of the Northern Province or the Northern Provincial Council (NPC) can not be criticized for bringing about the genocide resolution, since the NPC represents the people who were quite significantly impacted by the war. So the NPC, which represents these men and women and getting a democratic institution, has carried out its portion in the correct manner in bringing out the resolution. The Chief Minister has clearly pointed out the atrocities committed systematically towards the Tamils because the nation gained independence. Therefore without having addressing the genuine grievances of the folks impacted by the communal upheavals in the past, we cannot talk of reconciliation. Therefore, the genocide resolution was brought out to recognize the perpetrators who had committed the war crimes and bring justice to the war victims. The resolution is not at all meant to hurt the feelings of those who strive for peace and reconciliation in the country…

Q: Do you think the delay in releasing the OISL report will make way for the perpetrators to do the manipulations over the accusations against them with regard to the alleged war crimes?

A: Nothing at all like that. The OISL report has its own findings. It can’t be influenced or adjusted. The TNA is consistently in touch with the OHCHR officials. On the other hand the folks who had knowledgeable the adverse effects of the war should do every thing to strengthen the OISL report by adding more evidence to it. When the report is released in September it should bear the appropriate weight. The war victims must come forward without having any hesitation to strengthen the report further. They ought to be bold enough to give their evidence. There are many witnesses who had observed for themselves, directly, the atrocities committed in the course of the war. A massive number of crucial witnesses had provided their evidence in the past, secretly. However, they need to now cooperate inside the other six months to make the OISL report much more meaningful.

Q: How do you comment on the proposed internal investigation below the supervision of the OHCHR in Sri Lanka?

A: A nearby mechanism to hold an internal investigation into the alleged war crimes is crucial. It will not be a approach adopted in the form of commissions in the past. The internal investigation below the supervision of the OHCHR will aid in a big way to protect the witnesses as well. In any nation, to assistance the OHCRC action, an internal investigation is also carried out in addition to the UN investigation. As a result, the internal investigation, which is the Lankan Government is clamouring for, will only add weight in an substantial way to the UN action. Right here again the people, with no any hesitation, have to cooperate in the investigations in whatever form to attain a constructive finish outcomes.”

Mr. Sumanthiran’s Ceylon Today interview reveals the intentions and expectations of the TNA and provides an inkling into the nature of the pincer move comprising the ongoing OHCHR international investigation and an OHCHR-supervised “domestic mechanism” that Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and the Wickremesinghe administration seem to have agreed to.

*Dayan Jayatilleka was Minister in the North–East Provincial Council in 1988-’89 and Sri Lanka’s Ambassador/Permanent Representative to the UN Geneva in 2007-2009

By H. L. D. Mahindapala –

The 100-day programme of the “My-three-pala-naya” had no plans to encounter the Nugegoda rally. Not so soon, at least. They believed they could sail smoothly into the imagined “ideal country” located, of course, only in mythical Maithripala’s Manifesto. But within 40 days the “My-3-planners” have been hit by a backlash that no new elected government had ever faced in electoral politics. It is Ranil Wickremesinghe who is feeling the heat of the increasing events going against his political ambitions. It is his Prime Ministerial seat that is at stake in the coming general election. Maithripala Sirisena has no such issues due to the fact he is ensconced safely in his presidential seat.

It is this turn of events that has created Wickremesinghe nervous. He is displaying signs of a panic-stricken, nervous wreck. He is hitting indiscriminately at anything that moves – from the Australian Prime Minister to editor’s who have criticized him. He has now summoned newspaper owners to meet him to hold the media in line with his future. He has even invited anti-Rajapaksa NGOs to this meeting, hoping to get their backing to suppress the press.

It is time that somebody started feeding him with valium sandwiches morning, noon and evening to calm his nerves. This champion of “free media” – don’t forget how he packed off Paul Harris, the correspondent of Jane’s Weekly and Day-to-day Telegraph for exposing his deal with Prabhakaran? – feels that the only way to manage the oppositional forces rising against him is to muzzle the media. To do this he has to cook up a plausible argument. Having promised the electorate that the media will be totally free he can’t be observed to have gone back on his word to suppress the opposition. He has to offer an excuse. And the excuse is : media is rousing communal feelings!

So has anybody seen the Bodu Bala Sena, or even Champika Ranawaka who raved and ranted against the Muslims and Tamils in his current tour of Australia just just before the presidential election, whipping up communal feelings after January 8 in the south? I was in the Monash University audience listening to Ranawaka predicting the finish of the Sinhalese with the Muslims and the Tamils taking over the nation within the next few decades with their powers of prolific procreation, cash and scheming politics. Even he is silent as if his mouth is stuffed with pittu now on the communal issue. Only Wickremesinghe has begun to see Sinhala-Buddhist communalists increasing in the newspaper columns. Obviously, he hasn’t read TamilNet and Tamils newspapers. He is quitehappy to appear the other way about Jaffna jingoism because it does not pose a threat to him. Only the alleged communalism of the Sinhala papers is noticed as a threat to communal harmony. Which is Wickremesinghe’s way of saying that raising Sinhala-Buddhist problem is a threat to him.

Apart from this, there are early indicators of Wickremesinghe cracking below escalating stress. As a manage-freak, with an obsession to gather all power into his hands, the perform load is bound to overwhelm him. There is no 1 else to blame except himself for painting himself into this tight corner. All of a sudden every thing has begun to get on prime of him and unsettle him.

Initial, he is the unelected Prime Minister with out a majority in the Property. His position is hanging in the balance with his major political partners in the SLFP threatening to challenge his authority with a no-confidence motion against a single of his most reliable partners, John Amaratunga. He wouldn’t have offered Police powers to anybody other than whom he can trust. Keep in mind Amaratunga is the loyal Police Minister who concocted the story of Army trying target Wickremesinghe soon right after he signed the deal with Prabhakaran – a ruse to leak the names of the deadly and elite LRRP forces for the LTTE to target them?

Second the function load is throwing him into a dizzy spin, with pressures from a variety of lobbies crowding him and pushing him into corners from which he can’t escape. His political IOUs are also coming home to roost. He is also struggling desperately to catch up with his 100-day time-table which he presented with President Maithripala Sirisena to the organization community to impress that the “My-3” team can achieve what they promise. With every single failure and falling behind his own time schedule he is beginning to look a lot more like a lame duck than a dynamic reformer.

Third, cracks are building within his personal ranks and his partners and he does not how to prevent these exploding forces from running out of control.

Fourth, in his koka-tath-thai-laya Manifesto he has bitten more than what he can chew. The rosy optimism of delivering promises on time is fading by the day. Ven Sobitha is now batting on the sidelines promoting the thought of postponing the delivery date to two years.

Fifth, he wants to type a national government ONLY with him at the head, with out giving too a lot power to the other parties, even though they are in the majority. His obsession with energy with each other with his paranoia is compelling him to poke his fingers into minute information in the administration which is spinning beyond his control incrementally. It is impossible for him be at the best overseeing the massive picture and micro-handle the specifics at the bottom simultaneously. Nor is he. at 65, that healthier or physically robust to carry that work
load.

Sixth, his gimmickry of presenting a “seeni-bola” price range has come and gone with hardly any effect on the electorate. He has currently lost two Ministers – Faizer Mustapaha and Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha (possibly). And counting. There is no new blood to give a shine to his regime. He has fallen back on the tired old fogeys that led to his fall the last time.

Seventh, he lacks the charisma of a leader who can win the self-assurance of the people or a credible mandate from the electorate. He is in a really vulnerable position of based on manipulating a couple of ith-thas (pawns) at the leading. He is now screaming his head off saying that he can decrease Mahinda Rajapaksa’s majority. Is not this one more sign of his becoming on the verge of a nervous breakdown?

Final but not the least, an election is hanging over his head like a sword of Damocles and he knows that there will be hardly any individual to pick up his severed head.

His anti-Sinhala-Buddhist paranoia too is unsettling him. His initial reaction is to summon Sinhala newspaper editors and accuse them of rousing communal feelings. He has blasted them as “suck-killi-yas who cleaned Mahinda Rajapaksa’s toilets”. Not stopping at that he has decided to have a go at the media owners. He aims to tighten his grip on the media from the top and summoned the newspaper owners.

The reality is that the media has been subdued sufficiently and the state media has been cowed down. The media that ttaked him aggressively when he was in the opposition has turned to play his type of music. The state media, as per usual, has turned 360 degrees to be the Master’s voice. For instance, an NGO apparatchik like Luxman Gunasekera has returned to The Sunday Observer to resume his anti-Sinhala-Buddhist campaigns.

The nervous and paranoid politics of Wickremesinghe is revealed when he first blasted the Sinhala editors and then followed it up with summoning the newspaper owners on far-fetched charges of rousing communal passions without having uttering one word about the most damaging racist attack coming from Northern journalists, academics, NGOs and politicos. The most provocative statement to disturb communal harmony was the anti-Sinhala resolution passed by the North Provincial Council resolution on February 10, 2015.

Not since the Vadukoddai Resolution was passed on May possibly 14, 1976 has such a vicious, twisted, racist attack been unleashed by the North on the South. It is to the credit of the Sinhala-Buddhists that they have restrained themselves and not gone on the rampage. When the Tamil leadership passes a resolution projecting the entire Sinhala race as murderers of Tamils and accusing the complete leadership, which includes Wickremesinghe’s blood relatives, as genocidal barbarians, it was his prime duty, as the Prime Minister, to defend the nation and its wonderful leaders.

Which prime minister in the globe would not defend his/her nation against such a sweeping denigration of its image? When, for instance, Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake, in passing made a remark that people in Sri Lanka had not died of starvation like those in India. Indira Gandhi reacted furiously and Dudley, becoming the gentleman that he is, apologized in parliament explaining that he did not mean to denigrate or insult India.

Envision, for instance, the reaction of India if any southern provincial council had passed a resolution condemning Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a genocidal murder for what he did in Gujerat? Regardless of whether accurate or not, is generating such an accusation in sensitive instances conducive for reconciliation or easing the tensions in between Indian and Sri Lanka? So is NPC resolution aimed at promoting reconciliation? Or is directed at confronting the Sinhala-Buddhists with the sole aim of destroying communal harmony? Isn’t Wickremesinghe’s silence a deliberate act of giving consent and encouragement to the anti-Sinhala-Buddhists who are vilifying the nation for their political gain?

If the Sinhala-Buddhists have been the type of genocidal killers as stated in C.V. Wigneswaran’s resolution would they have rescued 300,000 Tamils fleeing from the Tamil Pol Pot? Would 23,000 Sinhala soldiers have sacrificed their lives to liberate the Tamil young children from the gulags of Tamil Boko Haram? Why has Wickremesinghe been silent on this internationally considerable and nationally sensitive situation? And why was he swift to turn his wrath on Sinhala editors and threaten newspaper owners by summoning them? As opposed to this, why is he purring like a pussy cat in the lap of Wigneswaran and the NPC? Is it simply because he got their votes to get into energy? Is Wickremesinghe appointed to play the function of the Prime Minister or Prime Traitor?

Please note that the NPC resolution was sent to the UNHRC, demanding action against Sri Lanka primarily based on the accusations listed in resolution. Any Prime Minister, who has any respect for his folks, would react forcefully, being aware of the significant consequences that would flow from such grossly distorted and concocted lies. The silence of a prime minister on a essential issue like this is completely unacceptable by those folks yearning for peace and reconciliation.

At a time when Western leaders in liberal democracies are demanding from minorities threatening the values of the majorities total acceptance of the national way of life, language, and laws Wickremesinghe has no right to be silent when “his nation” (I hope he agrees?) is condemned as a genocidal state by an additional neighborhood which has benefited most from sharing the riches, benevolence and welfare applications of the nation.

It is inconceivable that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe can stay silent on a critical situation like this. His silence can only imply that his uncles and grand-relatives were all murderous barbarians as stated in the resolution. Apart from, Wickremesinghe as well was a portion of the leadership that is accused of getting genocidal murderers. The only missing part in the NPC resolution are the atrocities committed at Batalanda. Could this be the explanation why he is silent on the NPC resolution? Is it with this record that Wickremesinghe proposes to contest Mahinda Rajapaksa in the coming election and reduce his vote by 5 million?

More importantly, will the media owners cave in and go along with Wickremesinghe? They have a duty by the readers and not by Wickremesinghe who does not even have a mandate from the folks, or parliament to be the prime minister. To counter Wickremesinghe’s media offensive they can politely hand over a copy of the “My-3”s” Manifesto highlighting the segment on free media. They can even go further and cite the guidelines of the International Democratic Union of which he is a Vice President.

The most incontrovertible argument against Wickremesinghe’s demand for compliance on the grounds of communal harmony comes from the West which is waging a life-and-death battle to defend free media against Islamic fundamentalists. The appropriate of the media to express freely, even when communal harmony is threatened, is exemplified in the case of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine which has inflamed passions on both sides. Employing the Charlie Hebdo stand to defend media freedom, even above communal harmony, the media owners ought to unmask Wickremesinghe’s fake hijab of taking cover behind communal harmony. He ought to not be permitted to import ISIS fanaticism duty free of charge. He can not market communal harmony by imposing his dictatorship only on the journalists of the south. He should begin with the NPC politicians 1st. He must begin very first by asking the NPC to apologize to the nation and withdraw its resolution. Communal harmony is a two-way procedure. It can not be attained by suppressing the media of the south.

The media owners need to not tolerate Wickremesinghe’s higher-handed action to study the riot act to them below the pretext of defending communal harmony. That is a bogus problem, as pointed out earlier. They need to attend and listen to him very carefully. If Wickremesinghe threatens them they can stroll out. For as soon as, they can be guaranteed that the people will be with them.