tamilweek.com

by K.S.Sivakumaran

I appreciate very much the films and documentaries produced in Canada , some of the outstanding works of fiction and criticism, and also a vibrating theatre movement in that country. My responses to these have appeared many times in Lankan newspapers both in English and Tamil during the past four decades or so. In fact, when I was a permanent resident in the US between 2002 and 2004, I had visited Toronto three times, two of such visits were on invitation to be honoured there.

appreciate very much the films and documentaries produced in Canada , some of the outstanding works of fiction and criticism, and also a vibrating theatre movement in that country. My responses to these have appeared many times in Lankan newspapers both in English and Tamil during the past four decades or so. In fact, when I was a permanent resident in the US between 2002 and 2004, I had visited Toronto three times, two of such visits were on invitation to be honoured there.During May 11-14, there was an International Conference on Tamil Studies organized by the English Departments of the Universities of Toronto and York. I was invited to register for the Conference, if interested. I did. Lankan born academic Chelva Kanaganayagam, who taught English in the University of Yaalpaanam is now Professor in English at the University of Toronto. He is a scholar. On enquiries, he was willing to give me four nights accommodation free during the seminar. Since I was interested in meeting and listening to some of the scholars participating in the Conference, I wanted to go to Canada and on my return visit Cincinnati in the US. I have many relatives and friends living in various parts of Canada.

I applied for a temporary visa to that extremely cold region producing all the documents required for admission to that country. But the Visa officer rejected my application on the following grounds: that I did not have sufficient funds to stay in Canada during my visit, that I would not return to Sri Lanka, that I have no permanent job in Sri Lanka, that I didn’t have any bank statements, and a letter from the employer indicating my monthly salary. Naturally I was disappointed because I submitted all the documents asked for along with my application.

How is it that the Visa officer did not duly pursue my application, when the visa counter clerks accepted my submission? I suspect foul play at the Visa Counter. Intentionally or otherwise, either one or all three of them at the desk seem to have juggled my application and documents before submitting to the Canadian officer. Those sitting at the counter were three local women. In the past, there had been many complaints against most local employees handling the visa applications in most of the foreign missions. The many letters written by distinguished Lankans on the misuse of power by local employees were published in the press. Even if the foreign employees would vie applications objectively, the locals could interfere in promoting their own interest. This had been spotlighted in the press now and then.

I had myself served as an FSN (Foreign Service National) in the then USIS in Colombo, as an Information Assistant along with well known journalists Dharmasena, Benedict Dodampegama, Gamage, Janaka Perera and Anthony Fernando in the Press section of the United States Information Service during the late 70s and early 80s. All of us did not earn a bad name for the institute we served.

At the visa counter in the Canadian embassy were three women busy working? I heard all of them speak in Tamil too — one with a Sinhala accent, another with a phoney accent, which was neither British nor American nor Lankan, and yet another who was busy typing. I have a feeling that the local ladies might have deliberately detached my relevant documents mentioned above, and merely submitted my application along with my passports (there was the old one and the new one). I do so because in the letter sent to me by the visa officer as a reply to my query why my application was rejected, there was no mention of the required documents I had submitted.

I strongly feel that an injustice had been committed by the Canadian embassy in rejecting my application for a temporary visa (I annexed a Bank Draft too for processing my application) by not carefully processing my documents. I feel sad because I missed an important conference relating to my academic and journalistic interests.

I hope that readers of this column would take notice of what had happened to me because among them might be academics and journalists, who could be faced with similar situations.

Even though the Canadian Embassy unjustly rejected my application for temporary visa to visit that country for a purpose, the US Embassy granted me a visa to visit the country. And I was in the US between May 08 and May 23, and returned safely and went back to teach as a permanent employee at a leading educational institution that is a gateway to progress and advancement. [Source: Island]

by Professor Willie Mendis
Senior Professor of Town & Country Planning University of Moratuwa

The Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project was inaugurated on 2 July 2005 by Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India. It’s conceptual origins may have a recorded history of 150 years for other reasons, in a vastly different geopolitical environment encompassing the Palk Strait. On the other hand, the common focus throughout this period was to use the shallow waterway between India and Sri Lanka. The condition of the latter had however remained pristine in that time, except during the monsoonal water surges from one end to the other, and also when in use for legitimate navigation between the two countries by small boats and ferries. This situation changed when it became the conduit for smuggling, and for poaching by fishermen, which caused concerns to rise to a high point in the bi-lateral political agenda. It’s consequence resulted in an agreement on a maritime boundary between the two countries. A fundamental aim of same was to facilitate surveillance by each country to enable the prosecution of the offenders.

In the larger domain of this waterway, known as the Palk Strait, named after a British Governor of Madras, Robert Palk, a plethora of other issues took center stage in the last three to four decades. It did not however mean that the idea of the canal had receded into the backwoods. Thus, a UN-ESCAP created Asian Highway project (which later expanded to include a Trans-Asian Railway, both of which were integrated into the Asian Land Transport Infrastructure Develo-pment Project), envisaged a ferry link across the waterway. Another issue which had a bearing on it, comprised the armed conflict which has been raging in northern Sri Lanka, fronting the waterway. A third issue consisted of the directives arising from the UN Commission on the Law of the Sea for determining the outer margin of the continental shelf for the delineation of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The latter could have an impact on oil and gas prospecting in the Bay of Bengal, and also on a request by India for returning Kachchativu Island on a ‘perpetual lease’ to them. These issues have therefore heightened the importance of the waterway in a manner very different to its past.

In addition to the aforesaid, the changes in the global maritime scenario were also impacting the importance of the waterway. For example, the influence on the development of International Container Terminals in some Ports of the Southern States of India and in its network with domestic shipping, have included the Tuticorin Port which envisages its future development by the deepening of the Palk Strait. Furthermore, the rising role of India as a global economic superpower has required its attention on the overall security of the Indian Ocean, along which travels a large share of shipping, especially the oil tankers, which are essential to sustain India’s economic growth. These are suggestive of the relevance for India’s naval traffic to be able to go around India using a deepened channel in the Palk Strait, without having to circumnavigate Sri Lanka. The latter would have also taken into account the security of the strategic nuclear power plants on India’s east coast in close proximity to the shoreline of the Palk Strait.

It was against the above backdrop that the previous Jayalalitha-led Government disfavoured an earlier proposal by Sri Lanka to construct a Land Bridge across the Palk Strait. The latter situation became more pronounced when the United Progressive Government took office in 2004. It comprised an Alliance of several political groupings which included the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), led by Muthuvel Karunanidhi. The Common Minimum Programme of this Alliance explicitly referred to the Sethu Canal Project, which it declared “will be completed expeditiously.” Accordingly, the Union Shipping Minister (from the DMK), fast tracked the advance of the Project to its current status where dredging is now talking place in the Palk Strait. The Sethu Canal Project was one which the DMK had declared as the Tamil Nadu State’s showcase-in-making during the run up to its Assembly polls. Consequently, it had been one of much debate in that State regarding the claims and counterclaims for its credit. The latter between Ms. Jayalalitha Jeyaraman and Mr. Muthuvel Karunanidhi were reported in an Article published in ‘The Hindu’ and reproduced in ‘The Island’ Newspaper of 2 July 2005. In same, the newly-elected Chief Minister was quoted as follows:

“Jayalalitha attempts to establish that the Sethusamudram Project has materialised following the demands made by MGR and herself. Is this true?

“Forty-five years ago in the year 1960 itself, Anna spoke regarding the Sethusamudram Project. Resolutions were passed demanding implementation of the Sethusamudram Project in the DMK conferences held in Tirupparankundram in 1961 and it Virugambakkam in 1966.

“After coming to power in the year 1967, Anna declared ‘Awakening Day’ and insisted on the implementation of the Sethusamudram Project and Tuticorin Harbour Project and continued to insist on the same during the subsequent assembly session.

“When I was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the year 1972, I presided over the function in which the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi declared open the statue of V. O. Chidambaram at the entrance of Tuticorin Harbour. In that function also, I spoke about the importance of the Sethusamudram Project in the usage and development of the Tuticorin Harbour.

“But concealing all these facts in her lengthy statement, Jayalalitha blows her own trumpet, as if she alone was instrumental in bringing about this scheme.

“If as she says, the steps to press for the implementation of the project were taken in the year 1998, who was the party in power then. Was it not the DMK? Was I not the Chief Minister? When this is the case how can Jayalalitha claim that she was instrumental in ensuring the project becoming a reality, be true?”

The result of the Tamil Nadu State Assembly polls which were held recently is now history. The DMK-led five party alliance which won 163 seats in the 234-member State Legislative Assembly now has Muthuvel Karunanidhi as its Chief Minister. Dr. Manmohan Singh’s Congress Party is a partner in this alliance. The DMK too is a partner in the Congress-led 24 party United Progressive Alliance in power at the center, headed by Dr. Singh.

In the aforesaid backdrop, the ground reality would most likely be that the state would be in harmony with New Delhi on many issues, especially on foreign policy impacting projects such as the Sethu Canal Project. This augurs well for Sri Lanka to launch a new era of bi-lateral relations across the Palk Strait. The new Government in office in Tamil Nadu State which has great relations with New Delhi and vice-versa, offers an opportunity to forge fresh partnerships. The latter cannot be overlooked in favour of the dictates of orthodox theory of foreign relations. Further-more, the largeness of India, coupled with the significant share of its four southern states, contrasts patently with its island neighbour located a mere 30 kilometers away. The shallow waterway which separates them never appeared as impacting the ‘excellent bi-lateral relations’. On the other hand, it is now engulfed with a multitude of issues which have all the attributes beyond the domain of conventional diplomacy. It has often become a platform for firefighting exercises, or for short-term trouble shooting.

The ‘wake-up call’ to focus the spotlight on the Palk Strait came with the beginnings of the conflict in northern Sri Lanka. Its spatial implications had no lessons of similarity elsewhere in the world. It’s subsequent experience was hardly cultivated to ‘fine-tune’ a working relationship between the respective land borders fronting the Palk Strait. It even took time for Sri Lanka to foresee the emergent potentials and constraints of a ‘Sri Lanka – South India subregional economy’. The Sethu Canal Project amplified this wide chasm. It has generated a demand for a dedicated focus on the waterway separating the two countries. This implies that Sri Lanka should get back to the drawing board at the Diplomatic Training Institute, and co-create a new chapter on the classical doctrine of bi-lateral relations. It should consider that in the long and arduous road of nation building, it is never too late to build partnerships beyond traditional political borders. The latter seems timely with the return of Muthuvel Karunanidhi as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu State.

In these circumstances, the recently reported reiteration of Sri Lanka’s expression to India of the importance of “effectively addressing the environmental concerns generated by the Sethu Canal Project,” acquires a new dimension. The Lankan submission at the 3rd Meeting of Technical Experts was that the two countries must “jointly ensure that the construction, maintenance and operation of the canal occur in a manner that it is not detrimental to the sensitive environment of the area, its flora and fauna.” The latter may now have to be viewed in the time – frame envisaged by the Center and the TN State for the completion of the project. Its implications may need closer study with the emergent situation of northern Sri Lanka’s conflict and the advances being made on the ‘co-ordinated patrolling’ which the Indian and Sri Lanka Navies have taken up along the International Maritime Boundary Line and also on the ‘sorting out of issues’ arising from the existing Free Trade Agreement which is being scoped to a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) to ‘unleash the inherent synergies between the two countries’.

The above suggests that it may be timely for Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry to establish a multi-disciplinary team, tasked with the responsibility of regularly working from our mission office in Chennai to meet with its identified counterparts in TN State. The already experienced frequencies of the meetings of the Technical Experts Group may not suffice for the three stakeholders (New Delhi, Colombo and Chennai), to arrive at desired outcomes. It is important for Sri Lanka to acknowledge that the Sethu Canal Project is now on an ‘implementation mode’. It’s expeditious completion may now get catalysed for the previously mentioned reasons morefully attributed to the DMK in the run-up to the TN Assembly polls. Consequently, if other opti-ons are not on Sri Lanka’s radar screen, there will now arise the urgency to prepare Sri Lanka’s road map for the Post-Sethu era. It’s already expressed active interest in the development of the Palk Bay area could then be integrated therein. The opportunity could also be taken to work out the modalities committed by the two countries in the Inter–Gover-nmental Agreement entered into in China for establishing its respective links in the Asian Highway. It’s spatial implications are what will reveal the ground realities of the synergies between Sri Lanka and the four Southern Indian States. The formal protocols of the bi-lateral Free Trade Agreement/CEPA will have different connotations to the spatial configuration of the envisaged synergies. The cornerstone of the latter will be the networking of the economically strategic human settlements and transportation corridors. Its manifestation in a Transnational Spatial Strategy could derive benefits from borders beyond South India to the rest of India, other South Asian countries, the BIMSTEC region, the IOR-ARC countries, and the Asian Highway-linked countries.

The timely emergence of the politically inter-dependant harmony between Chennai and New Delhi offers Sri Lanka the gateway to align its bi-lateral relations to include the Palk Strait dimension. In same, a feasible partnership between Colombo and the new administration of Tamil Nadu State, becomes fundamental for managing the post-Sethu era. [Source: Island]

By Devyani Rao

Indian defense expert General V. R. Raghavan (Retd.) maintains that the international community should put pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to be willing to make some internal changes to break the current deadlock in the peace process. In an interview, Gen. Raghavan explained that the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) has become an end in itself for the Sri Lankan Government, and they have shown little willingness towards accepting any of the demands of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

“The LTTE finds itself boxed in. The CFA came about because both parties wanted a negotiated settlement but now the LTTE finds the negotiations are not leading anywhere. The Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) frankly hasn’t shown any willingness to give any kind of package to the LTTE ,either in terms of a Tamil province or division of administration”, he said.

While the attacks continue in far away Trincomalee and Jaffna, the CFA has allowed the island’s GDP, tourism, rice production, agriculture etc. to grow and the ceasefire has ensured that there are no assassinations, bomb blasts or military operations. The Sri Lankan economy is no longer suffering because of the conflict and so the Government appears to be content with allowing the status quo to continue, the general pointed out.

“For the Government, the CFA has become an end in itself, allowing it to avoid conflict without actually making any concessions”, said the general.

“The LTTE finds that if they return to all-out violence they will be declared terrorists by other countries, so all they can do is carry on with their landmine attacks and bomb blasts. Hence the assassination of Kadiragamar, which they say they didn’t do but everybody, knows they did. The CFA has allowed the GOSL the best of both worlds, which is why the LTTE wants it to breakdown”, he argued, adding that it was for this reason also that the Tigers refused to participate in the second round of negotiations until Karuna’s troops are disarmed. In the midst of the ongoing shadow war and the desperate attempts of the co-chairs to get negotiations between the Government and the LTTE back on track, the fundamental problem is being overlooked according to Gen. Raghavan.

“If the GOSL wants to retain the unity of the country they need to hold elections with the LTTE participating. The LTTE wants to run those elections. We know that they are fascists and thugs and 90% of their government will be full of LTTE representatives, but that will be the beginning of something better”, he insisted. For the veteran Indian defense expert, what is required in Sri Lanka is for the Singhalese to agree amongst themselves to give more. “Sri Lanka is a state which has lost control and the people are divided. Successive Governments in Colombo have failed to reach a consensus among themselves on how to go ahead with the peace process”, he affirmed. “When I met Kadirgamar a month before he died”, recalled the general, he said ‘Delhi is telling us to come together’- for Rajapakse and Wickremesinghe to come together to solve the problem” he added, reminding that Rajapakse won the election by joining the JVP, which is an extremist Sinhalese group, saying he will not budge from the unitary state concept.

“We tell them (GOSL) behind the scenes to consider a federal option. Now they say the Constitution doesn’t permit it. Then they should change it. You want to have an absolute domination of the Sinhalese polity and denial of Tamil equal rights…there can be no solution that way” he insisted.Why does India think the GOSL should make “concessions” to the LTTE when New Delhi itself has often repeated that it does not negotiate with terrorists? Gen. Raghavan explained that the problem in India, with the communist “naxalite” rebels for instance, is somewhat different. “We have elected governments and legitimate administrations in every state. Groups like ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam) are but dissidents demanding certain things”.

The General strongly feels if the government of Sri Lanka wants to retain the unity of the country it has to create a structure whereby the rights of the Tamil population are guaranteed. He stressed that, irrespective of the portion of the territory under LTTE control, there can be no lasting solution without the group being party to it and despite the internal division created by Karuna, it still wields enough power to influence negotiations.” We don’t run India by saying if the Sikhs are 14% they have 14% rights. The Tamils are being denied their rights as equal citizens”, he said, clarifying that “India doesn’t say they should hand over power to Prabhakaran” but reminded that even India negotiated with Prabhakaran because he was in control of territory.

“In India we have long ago recognized regional languages and it was indeed, on the basis of ethnic, cultural and language differences that the several states in India were formed post 1947. In Sri Lanka, the Tamils have no such equal rights”, he pointed out On his last visit to New Delhi, having held talks with the LTTE and the GOSL in Colombo, the Japanese special envoy to Sri Lanka, Yashushi Akashi, reiterated the importance of India’s intervention in the peace process in the neighboring island. General Raghavan however dismissed the assumption of a greater role by New Delhi, saying that it is not in a position to do anything “until Sri Lanka allows it”. The general explained that India’s intervention would have far-reaching consequences for its own internal politics, particularly in the south of the country.

“The southern states have put India on the global map, thanks to the IT sector, etc., and any coalition government would need to forge alliances with the regional parties there”The general recalled that “In 1986, India suggested that Colombo restore parties on the basis of multi-ethnicity we even negotiated with Prabhakaran. If Sri Lanka wants a government in Jaffna, the LTTE has to be allowed to take the lead. At this stage, an intervention by India would create a war-like situation where the Tamils from the neighboring island would migrate to Indian Territory and this in turn would create ruptures”.

“The only part India can play is to offer a federal package and Sri Lanka can and should amend its Constitution to facilitate this”, he affirmed. “Money cannot buy Prabhakaran”, said the general with conviction, having held one – on- one talks with the LTTE chief as an official on behalf of New Delhi on a number of occasions prior to India’s fighting the rebels. “Today, Prabhakaran finds that he is the only bad guy. Terrorism doesn’t work, but he is making it work by striking where it hurts- through attacks and ambushes on the Sri Lankan troops”. “So what you have now is a military stalemate.

The Government is internationally in a better position and neither side has any military option. There can be no win, no loss, no war, no peace”, said the general, adding that while the LTTE finds itself under the glare of the international community, the fact that the economy and functioning of the country is relatively unaffected by the conflict in the north and east, the GOSL will also not make any significant overtures towards breaking the deadlock. [Source: DailyMirror]

By Dushiyanthini Kanagasabapathipillai

An expression of voice for peace and against war was held at the Lipton Circus in Colombo 07, Sri Lanka on May 29th 2006. People from various parts of the island participated in two hour expression of voice for peace and against war, despite rainy weather. This was organized by the National Peace Council.

The objective of the expression of voice for peace and against war, was to put pressure on the Government of Sri Lanka, and the Liberation tigers of Tamil Eelam. The following demands were put forward by the people, who are opposed to war and violence.

1.stop forthwith the killing of innocent people

2.Comply with the Ceasefire Agreement

3.Commence peace talks immediately

“I want peace, because I want to make friends from the other communities” says Varatharaj Vinothraj (11) from Yatiyanthota

The people from Galle disrtict participating in an expression of voice for peace and against war

Leo Niroshan Darshan Sathasivam, photojournalist of Thinakkural newspaper recording images of the expression of voice for peace and against war

Rev.Sister Placida Leenakaduwa of Fransikan Church in Mattakuliya is holding a placard saying “No War”

People from Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities participated

People’s Voice for Peace

“The children will be killed,if the war starts again” says Santhuni Wadumethirige (11) from Galle

Young Buddhist monks participants

Leaflets are being handed over to the participants

Muslim participants from Puttalam

Children from Elpitiya, South of Sri Lanka

Contact: dushi.pillai@gmail.com

Source: HumanityAshore.org

By Jayadeva Uyangoda

A large-scale break out of hostilities between the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE seems to be now inevitable. As things stand right now, the decision by the European Union on the question of listing the LTTE as a terrorist entity is crucial in shaping the agenda of events in the next few weeks to come.

Mr. Erik Solheim, the Norwegian Minister in charge of Sri Lanka’s peace process, has given expression to an increasing sense of pessimism felt by the international actors, concerning the prospects for Sri Lanka. He spent two days, May 25 and 26, in Colombo, along with the special peace envoy, Mr. Jon Hanssen-Bauer.

Then on May 27, he flew to New Delhi to consult the Indian government. As AFP reported on that day, he has said in New Delhi that Sri Lanka “could be heading back to all-out war.”

Solheim has also commented that Sri Lanka’s peace process was “more difficult” than he thought. These are indeed strong words coming from a man who knows the mind of both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. One may also note that Solheim as well as the Norwegian diplomats have always been very cautious in making public statements about the failures in their peace-making task in Sri Lanka.

Banning

Meanwhile, the proposed banning of the LTTE by the EU is most likely to be a defining event in the conflict. It will certainly force the LTTE into a period of isolation and in turn to a behaviour of isolationism.

Both the international community and the gvernment appear to work on the assumption that the LTTE leadership might become flexible in response to a coordinated campaign of international isolation. It would be interesting to see how this strategy works. Tigers might be less likely to be flexible under conditions which they see as coercion. This is a major policy dilemma for any government in dealing with the LTTE.

In the coming phase of isolation and isolationism, the LTTE might be tempted to act unilaterally. There are already warnings of such unilateralism. In an extreme scenario, the LTTE can withdraw from all their international engagements, including the dialogue with the SLMM and the Norwegian facilitator.

Such an action will amount to withdrawing from the CFA, without actually saying it in writing. The LTTE leaders probably think that by such action they would be able to turn the tables on the government as well as the international community.

Show down

Meanwhile, it appears that both the government and the LTTE are willing to risk a major military show down. If the war breaks out, it will create immense destruction to both sides. The tragedy is that the two sides know it, but take little concrete action to arrest the sliding back to war. Such is the way things happen in this age of unreason.

What will eventually happen after a mutually destructive war between the government and the LTTE? One distant possibility is the realization of what many Sinhalese patriotic forces are opposing at present, namely the entry of the UN peacekeeping troops to separate the two warring sides from fighting. Those who oppose such a development seem to behave in a manner that will actually create conditions for it.

The unkind dialectic of politics is that one often gets outcomes one does not want. If the JVP leadership is really committed to preventing an eventual UN intervention, the best course of action is to prevent a large-scale war from breaking out.

But their thinking appears to be based on the assumption that in a full-scale war, there will be a real chance to defeat the LTTE militarily. As this thinking goes, an external military intervention to separate the two warring sides will only prevent such a favourable outcome.

Mutual bleeding

The second, more realistic possibility is that after a lot of bleeding, the two sides, tired and exhausted of war and violence, might ask the international community to come and mediate in the conflict.

This scenario of mutual bleeding will interestingly create a new strategic equilibrium between the government and the LTTE on an ‘I lose-you also lose’ framework. This would be an original contribution that the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE would be making to the theories of conflict resolution: A lose-lose outcome is as important in defining conflict dynamics as is a win-win outcome.

This is where Sri Lanka has to learn lesson from Nepal. A country that does not boast of its achievements as we Sri Lankans do, Nepal has shown a tremendous example of a low-cost path to political change and reform.

There is a low-cost path to conflict management in Sri Lanka. It is the path of political engagement. Return to political engagement is not only a low-cost path to peace. It is also the most humane and rational option.

Window of opportunity

The reported statements made by President Rajapakse insisting that he does not consider war as an option can constitute a new, though narrow, window of opportunity for re-opening the path to political engagement.

But the effects of these statements need to be further strengthened by elaborating a broad framework statement for a new process of political engagement between the government and the LTTE.

This ‘framework statement’ can have three main components. It should fist re-iterate the government’s assurance to fully implement the CFA as well as the commitments made in Geneva in February this year. By making this point, President should invite the LTTE’s reciprocity. Secondly, the framework statement should propose broadening of the scope of political engagement, from talks on the CFA and de-escalation to political negotiations suspended in 2003. Thirdly, it should propose a political-constitutional framework for ethnic conflict resolution, conceived in terms of extensive regional autonomy.

Time, indeed, is running out for Sri Lanka. More than ever, the fate of Sri Lanka depends on the decisions made by one person, Sri Lanka’s head of state.

One can only hope that President Rajapakse has the strength to continue to defy the counsel given to him by some of his advisors and allies for a military solution, and without delay inaugurate a new phase of political engagement with the LTTE. This is difficult, but necessary. Even if does not work fully, it is a path worth taking. [Source: DailyMirror]

By Dushiyanthini Kanagasabapathipillai

“People’s Voice for Peace”:

An expression of voice for peace and against war was held at the Lipton Circus in Colombo 07, Sri Lanka on May 29th 2006. People from various parts of the island participated in two hour expression of voice for peace and against war, despite rainy weather. This was organized by the National Peace Council.

The objective of the expression of voice for peace and against war, was to put pressure on the Government of Sri Lanka, and the Liberation tigers of Tamil Eelam. The following demands were put forward by the people, who are opposed to war and violence.

1.Stop forthwith the killing of innocent people

2.Comply with the Ceasefire Agreement

3.Commence peace talks immediately

“I want peace, because I want to make friends from the other communities” says Varatharaj Vinothraj (11) from Yatiyanthota

The people from Galle disrtict participating in an expression of voice for peace and against war

Leo Niroshan Darshan Sathasivam, photojournalist of Thinakkural newspaper recording images of the expression of voice for peace and against war

Rev.Sister Placida Leenakaduwa of Fransikan Church in Mattakuliya is holding a placard saying “No War”

People from Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities participated

People’s Voice for Peace

“The children will be killed,if the war starts again” says Santhuni Wadumethirige (11) from Galle

Young Buddhist monks participants

Leaflets are being handed over to the participants

Muslim participants from Puttalam

Children from Elpitiya, South of Sri Lanka

Contact: dushi.pillai@gmail.com

Source: HumanityAshore.org