tamilweek.com

by Col R Hariharan

Though Sri Lanka finished the Eelam War in triumph a year back, its battle with the international community does not appear to be over. It was joined in right earnest last week when the maverick Sri Lankan minister and ‘revolutionary’ turned politician Wimal Weerawansa spearheaded a siege of the UN office in Colombo. He was demanding the withdrawal of the UN expert panel appointed to advise the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sri Lanka’s human rights and humanitarian record during the war.

But Weerawansa added more spice to the protest when he went on “fast unto death.” The National Freedom Front leader being no Mahatma Gandhi nobody expected him to die a martyr. Though theatricals of the protest were overdone, it was more than a publicity gimmick or a photo opportunity for Weerawansa because it had official blessing. President Mahinda Rajapaksa showed his solidarity with the minister’s action by visiting the fasting minister and ‘persuaded’ him to break his fast on the second day.
If paralysing work at the UN office was the objective of the protest, the minister’s mission was eminently successful. Work at the UN office was paralysed and the UN asked its staffers not to come out. The UNDP Regional Centre in Colombo was shut down. The UN Resident Coordinator in Colombo, Neil Buhne was called back to New York.

Buhne is going back now after the UN clearly articulated its expectations from Colombo: better treatment of the U.N. family in Sri Lanka, progress of commitments covered in the Joint Statement of May 2009 including resettlement of internally displaced persons, political reconciliation and accountability. So the minister’s protest has not only failed, but also appears to have firmed up the UN Secretary General’s resolve to go ahead with the work of UN experts’ panel.

As Sri Lanka considers the action of the UN Secretary General an infringement of national sovereignty, its ire is understandable. But the way it is being handled as a populist ploy than through diplomatic moves makes one suspect the intentions. Is it part of President’s strategy to milk the issue for internal political gains? Although, his overwhelming public support was confirmed in the recent presidential and parliamentary polls, the protests focusing on outsider interference does put opposition on the defensive to temper their criticism of the government.

Ban Ki-moon was well within his powers to appoint a panel of experts to advise him on the issue. The Secretary General’s action would have provided a safe option to Sri Lanka to defer the issue from adverse limelight. It would also have given inkling on the follow up action likely at the UN Security Council or the UN Human Rights Commission.
But why Sri Lanka has chosen to do have a confrontation with the UN? Obviously it does not want any external body to investigate allegations of human rights violations.

The second explanation is the fear that allowing experts’ panel would lead to probe into war crimes allegations against Sri Lanka army during the last phase of war. Sri Lanka’s prickly reaction only strengthens suspicions of its conduct. The relentless efforts of influential international NGOs and diehard Tamil Diaspora Eelam lobby to bring Sri Lanka to the dock on this count are likely to continue regardless of Sri Lanka stand on UN panel.

Sri Lanka’s objection should be viewed in the backdrop of its long term skirmish with “foreign interference.” It started with its bitter experience of the way the Monitoring Mission of the peace process 2002 functioned. And international role in Sri Lanka’s conflict became a contentious issue in the presidential poll 2005. Its attitude hardened in 2006 after a disastrous experience with an international panel of eminent persons’ inquiry into alleged killings carried out by security men which was given up midway due to lack of cooperation from Sri Lankan side. And its international reputation had been on the down slide even before the war started when scores of people ‘disappeared’ and media men were hounded.

The common thread running in the UN action as well as the European Union’s suspension of the GSP+ export tariff concessions is the trust deficit in Sri Lanka’s words. And to dismiss as international prejudice or conspiracy to belittle Sri Lanka’s triumph against terrorism would be foolhardy. More situations of a similar kind are in the making.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi has suggested to the Indian government to assess the situation in the affected areas in Sri Lanka and the progress of rehabilitation measures undertaken by the Sri Lankan government for internally displaced Tamils. Though he has left the option of who will carry out this task to Dr Manmohan Singh, unless a special envoy is sent the issue would hang fire in Tamil Nadu. And both the leaders cannot afford it as the state is getting ready for assembly poll. The chief minister was only reflecting public opinion and what the Indian government had been asking Colombo in private. How Sri Lanka is going to handle this ‘foreign interference’ is the moot question?

This time around nobody can accuse the TN chief minister of being anti-Sinhalese. Around the same time, he had arrested Seeman, the Kollywood director turned leader of the pro-LTTE Naam Tamilar party, under the National Security Act for ‘inciting the public’ against Sinhalese in Chennai.

Whatever be the President’s internal agenda, he urgently needs to repair fractured international credibility. And regardless of Sri Lanka’s own opinion, its waning credibility will expose it to more and more international criticism. The NAM (non aligned movement) lobby at the UN has already shown to be an unreliable forum to plead for Sri Lanka. China, Russia and India – considered as friends of Sri Lanka – cannot be expected repeatedly to bale out Sri Lanka in the face of strong international line up.

The reason is not merely the demand for greater international accountability of nations, but also greater global awareness of rights of people and citizens. So the issue cannot be wished away; the President is bound to be questioned locally and internationally till their credibility gap is bridged with reasoning.

Sri Lanka’s credibility is directly related to three issues: its human rights record and accountability, rehabilitation issues of displaced Tamils, and vintage grievances of Tamil population. Actions like holding the cabinet meeting in Kilinochi, or providing better connectivity from North do not convince the public when people in villages around are destitute and there is lack of security and trust in government.

For its own good Sri Lanka should seriously look at human rights record and improve it. It is not India or the international community, but almost all opposition parties, media, and President Rajapaksa’s erstwhile chief of defence staff have complained of serious human rights violations. And many of them continue to do so. The emergency regulations are still haunting the public; even now Tamils in Wellawatte are asked to register with the police as pointed out by the National Peace Council.

The strategy to ward off international intrusion in what governments do is simple: be proactive and develop systems to be so. This helps the nation to look beyond playing sleight of hand competition in international forums as Sri Lanka is doing now. And it also enables the nation build its value systems, a great asset in forging ethnic amity. But this is more easily said than done, particularly if those in power want to make political capital out of problems. Even in such an agenda improving leader’s credibility is never a liability.

(Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com Blog: www.colhariharan.org)

Karnatic Keerthanams by Seyvita Sooriakumar (13) of Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

1. ~ Valaichi Ragamalikai – Athi – Patnam Subramanya Iyer (5:10)

2. ~ Vathapi Ganapathim – Hamsadvani – Athi – Muthuswamy Thikshitar (12:09)

3. ~ Sujana Jeevana – Kamas – Rupakam – Thiyagaraja (3:44)

4. ~ Unnaiyallal – Kalyani –Athi – Papanasam Sivan (10:21)

5. ~ Nennaeunji – Maalavi – Athi – Thiyagaraja (4:24)

6. ~ Saravanabava – Shanmugapriya – Athi – Papanasam Sivan (8:36)

7. ~ Pathimamam Sri – Janaranjani – Athi – Maha Vaithyanatha Iyer (4:15)

8. ~ Bandureeti – Hamsanadham – Athi – Thiyagaraja (4:39)

9. ~ Mamavathu Sri – Hindolam –Athi – Mysore Vasuthevacharya (8:47)

10. ~ Ananda Nadamaduvar – Purvi Kalyani – Rupakam – Neelakanda Sivan (3:42)

11. ~ Ean Palli – Mohanam – Athi – Arunachala Kavirayar (3:11)

12. ~ Nagumomu – Aberi- Athi – Thiyagaraja (7:04)

13. ~ Thillana- Kathanakuthuhalam – Athi – Dr. Balamurali Krishna (2:41)

14. ~ Thirupukhal – Hamsanandhi – Athi – Arunagirinathar (0:52)

Govt must assure the public of the independent status of the Attorney General

By The Friday Forum

The Friday Forum is an informal gathering of public spirited persons wishing to contribute to the future development of Sri Lanka within a framework of democracy, social justice and pluralism.

The Forum brings together a diversity of expertise and viewpoints reflecting its membership consisting of academics, various professionals, retired diplomats and civil servants, educationists, leaders of civil society organizations and leading personalities from the private sector. Furthermore, our membership reflects the diverse ethnic and religious composition of Sri Lankan society. The forum meets regularly to discuss issues of public concern and to make interventions in the public interest.

One of the key areas of concern of the Friday Forum is the preservation of the integrity of independent institutions. It is clear that the proper functioning of those institutions, such as the independent commissions recognized by the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, is essential for democratic governance and to preserve a democratic way of life for the people.

We have noted with concern the current status of the Attorney-General’s Department (AG’s Department) consequent to the Gazette Extraordinary No.1651/20 of April 30, 2010 on the allocation of subjects to various ministries. The AG’s Department, which has traditionally come under the Ministry of Justice, finds no mention in the Gazette notification either under that ministry or elsewhere. The necessary implication under Article 44 (2) of the Constitution is that as an unallocated subject or function the department automatically comes under the purview of the President. So far, the government has neither confirmed that the AG’s Department has come within the purview of the President nor officially disclosed the reasons for changing the long standing convention affiliating the Department with the Ministry of Justice.

That in a democracy, the Attorney-General should not only function but must be seen to function in an independent manner cannot be emphasised more. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has, in no uncertain terms, recognized and affirmed the independent role of the AG (Land Reform Commission v. Grand Central Ltd. [1981] Sri LR 147).

The AG is the custodian of the Rule of Law and of the public interest in a democracy. The functions of the AG must always be informed by no other factor or consideration than the upholding of the public interest and the Rule of Law. Even in countries where the Attorney-General is a political appointee, there is an expectation that the holder of that office must act independently of the Executive, especially in prosecutorial functions, because to do so otherwise would negate the preservation of the Rule of Law and the public interest.

If the Attorney-General, in discharging the functions of office, provides legal advice to the government or engages in the prosecutorial function in a non-independent manner, moved more by political and partisan considerations, the Rule of Law is defeated and the public interest stands desecrated.

The AG is also the head of the Bar—not only of the Official Bar as one would think, but of the entire Bar. At ceremonial sittings of the court, the AG sits representing the entire Bar. As such, it is the AG’s duty to protect the integrity of the legal profession. It also follows then that the AG has to ensure the protection of judicial independence which is indispensable to the proper functioning of the Bar. If the office of the AG itself is not independent then those objectives cannot be achieved.

The appointment and removal processes of the AG under the current law confirm the independence of the office of the AG in Sri Lanka . The appointment of the AG falls within the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The President has to obtain the approval of the Constitutional Council to appoint the preferred nominee. The removal of the AG has to be done under terms of the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act, No. 5 of 2002. Accordingly, the AG holds office during good behaviour (as opposed to at pleasure) and can be removed only by Parliament on specific grounds after inquiry.

Over the past decades, the politicization of the Office of the Attorney-General has been observed with alarm. We have watched successive Attorneys-General go before international forums and defend the position of the government of the day, even when doing so defeated the rights of the people. We have watched charges against political dissidents expedited and charges against the powerful dropped or delayed.

In this post-war era, where public expectations of the State’s commitment to the Rule of Law are very high, and where the restoration of law and order is viewed as an indispensable element of the development process, it is imperative that the public has confidence in the office of the Attorney-General.

Therefore, we urge the government to assure the public of the independent status of the Attorney-General. At a minimum, we urge that the Department be affiliated with the Ministry of Justice as was the norm. Ideally, now that constitutional reform is again on the political agenda, we propose that the AG’s Department be brought under Article 52 (2) of the Constitution so that it is treated on par with the Departments of the Auditor General and the Elections Commissioner, Offices of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsperson), the Secretary-General of Parliament and the Secretary to the Cabinet of Ministers, which means that it is no longer treated as a department of government.

We urge the incumbent Attorney-General to heed public concerns and take every possible measure to demonstrate to the public that he is guided only by the Rule of Law and the public interest.

We make this earnest appeal in a spirit of constructive engagement having as our sole objective the interests of the country.

Signed,

Bishop Duleep Chickera,
Jayantha Dhanapala,
Prof. Arjuna Aluvihare,
Prof. Gananath Obeysekere,
Harin Malwatte,
Dr. Anura Ekanayake,
Prof. Savithri Goonesekere,
Chandra Jayaratne,
Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne,
Dr. Nimal Sanderatne,
Dr. Devanesan Nesiah,
Dr. A.C. Visvalingam,
Ranjit Fernando,
Dr. Selvy Thiruchandran,
Manouri Muttetuwegama,
Sithie Tiruchelvam,
Lanka Nesiah,
Dr. Ranjini Obeysekere,
Jezima Ismail,
Shanthi Dias,
Dr. Stewart Motha,
Damaris Wickremesekera,
J.C. Weliamune,
Ahilan Kadirgamar,
Dr. Camena Gunaratne,
Prashan de Visser,
Dr. Deepika Udagama

The detained former military commander General Sarath Fonseka says he is prepared to meet the special panel appointed to advice the UN chief on alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka, according to a report by BBC Sandeshaya. He also stressed that any country should take steps to resolve issues with the international community if there are any question marks over the conduct of the said country.

Speaking to BBC Sandeshaya General Fonseka further said, “We should not try to get involved in a conflict with the UN” and “As a citizen of Sri Lanka, if I get an opportunity to support such an inquiry, I think we shouldn’t hesitate to do that.”

The former military commander who is facing two military trials said that the conditions imposed by the European Union to extend the GSP+ facility are fair. “I don’t think it is an intervention in internal affairs,” he said. “The EU has demanded the release of political prisoners which includes me,” Gen Fonseka added.

Benefits could accrue if Sri Lanka responds positively to EU demands instead of rejecting them

Full Text of Press Release ~ National Peace Council

The Sri Lankan government has said it is rejecting the 15 conditions set out by the European Union in relation to extending the benefits of the GSP Plus tariff concession since such demands constitute a violation of our national sovereignty.

The government has also announced that it will deny visas to the three members of the panel of experts appointed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to advise him on human rights issues pertaining to Sri Lanka’s recently concluded civil war. The Sri Lankan government’s position is that both the EU and UN Secretary General are interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state and that this is unacceptable.

As a democratic country which has subscribed to the UN Declarations on Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, Sri Lanka is obliged to comply with their obligations. Similarly the requirements of the EU are in accordance with our Constitution which we are all morally obliged to uphold. Safeguarding our national sovereignty also needs to go hand in hand with upholding human rights and Humanitarian Laws.

There are sections of the international community that believe Sri Lanka violated them in recent years and during the last phase of the war. The government will have to make all efforts to convince the world that we did not do so. It was due to the violation of the laws of war during the Second World War as shown in such incidents as the carpet bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that there was an outcry against such violations that the UN was set up after the war and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up by a team that included eminent men drawn from all major religions with Buddhism being represented by U Thant.

We believe that the government has taken the right step in setting up the Commission on the Lessons of the Conflict. Unfortunately and based on earlier experiences the composition of the Commission and the Terms of Reference appear not to have convinced the UN that its rightful concerns will be fully addressed. Under the circumstances, the NPC believes the Government can engage itself with the UN and seek to broaden the mandate of our own Commission in return for not appointing a separate UN Commission.

As for the 15 conditions being put forward by the EU they are aimed at addressing some of the general problems of internal governance and human rights within Sri Lanka in accordance with international covenants that Sri Lanka has already signed. In addition, the issues raised by the EU have also been raised by the democratic opposition and civil society groups within Sri Lanka itself.

The National Peace Council believes that instead of outright rejection of the EU’s conditions, the Sri Lankan government ought to respond to them in a positive manner. The response made by Sri Lanka’s Ministry of External Affairs, pointing out the inapplicability of some of the EU requirements, could provide a model for a continuing dialogue with the EU on the need to modify its requirements.

If there are some conditions that the government feels it cannot accede to for good reasons that are in the country’s national interests, these could be explained and the EU will need to be open minded in seeing the Sri Lankan government’s point of view.

There are two benefits that could accrue to Sri Lanka by responding positively to the EU. This can be done in a phased manner and according to a road map that is reasonable following discussions and agreement with the EU. First it can retain the GSP Plus concession which is of major importance to the Sri Lankan economy and to its working people.

Second, and as important if not more important, it can send a message to the larger international community that the Sri Lankan government is genuinely responsive to concerns about good governance and human rights as it affects its own people, and also is prepared to live up to its international commitments.

If the EU requirements are met after further negotiations by a responsive Sri Lankan government, this would help to address the issues raised by the UN Secretary General and rally greater support from the larger international community to the Sri Lankan government’s own concerns. The net result will be an upliftment of the political, economic and social status of all Sri Lankans.

“Freedom when?” was what many in the “wedding ceremony” asked according to BBC Sandeshaya and tweets remarked the military marriage of militants “hugely oversteps ethical boundaries”.

The ceremony attracted widespread media coverage. Reports say the mass wedding was held under heavy military presence and future for the newly-weds remains uncertain:

from TweetsTrove:

- the ‘happy couples’ sure look like they’re enjoying the ceremony. rehabilitation rendered a publicity stunt.

- #srilanka state-arranged #marriage of captured militants still in detention hugely oversteps ethical boundaries

And Reuters put out a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUQQw4Hg3hA

Report by Sandeshaya:

The Sri Lankan military has organised a mass wedding of more than fifty couples suspected to be from the Tamil Tiger rebel group at a ceremony in Vavunia.

Suspected former rebels are being held at a military-run camp following their defeat by government forces in May last year.

Sri Lankan army says many of the couples had been unable to marry earlier because they were fighting in the civil war.

“Freedom when?”

A BBC correspondent who attended the event says many now want to know when they will be freed from military custody.

The mass wedding was held under heavy military presence.

The director general in charge of rehabilitation, Brigadier Sudantha Ranasinghe said that the newly weds will be housed in a designated village.

“Arrangements have been made for their relatives to visit them,” added Brigadier Ranasinghe.

More than ten-thousand Tamil Tiger rebels, who surrendered following the defeat of Tamil Tigers in May last year, are under military custody in northern Sri Lanka.

Excerpts from the report by Guardian UK:

Ravichandra Rasikeshara, 26, married another former fighter, 22-year-old Thaksarani.

“We don’t want an Eelam [a separate state]. We want freedom and a happy family life,” Ravichandra, who worked as a paramedic for the LTTE, said.

The witness for the marriages was Indian film star Vivek Oberoi who had come came to Sri Lanka for an Indian film awards ceremony earlier this month and visited the camp at the government’s invitation.

The future for the newly-weds remains uncertain. Sivapathasundaram Kavithas, 29, had been a fighter for nine years and had met his wife Bhavani, 28, a fighter for 12 years, when they went for weapons training together.

Kavithas said he was pleasantly surprised that his marriage was formalised but said he still longed for freedom from the camp to look after his sister who lives alone. Their parents and two brothers were killed in the last stages of the fighting, he said.

“We will live the same restricted life, the difference is we will be living together again,” said Bhavani.

The couples will be provided with separate tents . Few will be going on honeymoon in the near future. Nearly 3,000 of the 11,000 former Tigers detained at the war’s end have now been released but Brigadier Ranasinghe said “a little bit more rehabilitation work” was needed before those married yesterday could go free.

Daily Mirror.lk video of the event

Bollywood star Vivek Oberoi at the event