Jailed Army Commander's wife says legal action would be taken

Colombo Page
.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Sri Lanka's former Army Commandeers and DNA Leader retired General Sarath Fonseka's wife, Anoma Fonseka said that in addition to the agitation campaigns, legal action would also be taken against the court martial verdict that imprisoned her husband for 30 months.

Fonseka's lawyers are currently in the process of preparing a writ application to be filed before the Appeal Court against the verdict of the second court martial.

Anoma told the media today that she has permission to visit Fonseka only once a month unless a special request is made.

She visited Fonseka in prison Friday along with DNA parliamentarians after he was transferred to Welikada Prison from the Nay headquarters on Thursday (Sept 30) night.

Members of parliament and Fonseka's lawyers are to have regular visits to the prison to meet him.

© Colombo Page

Read More

Summary only

Ban's “abnormal” understanding with Sri Lanka's Rajapaksa

By Matthew Russell Lee | Inner City Press
.............................................................................................................................................................................................

The UN's stonewalling on Sri Lanka expanded on October 1 with the Spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dodging whether Ban reached a private understanding with President Mahinda Rajapaksa that Rajapaksa could represent what Ban said in a one on one meeting about the limits of the UN war crimes panel.

“It's up to individual heads of state” to issue whatever summaries they want, Spokesman Martin Nesirky said.

But did Ban reach an understanding with Rajapaksa, that he could say things not included in Ban's own summary of their meeting? Nesirky did not answer.

Inner City Press asked again, as it has for months, for a description of Ban's contacts with Rajapaksa, including before and as Ban became Secretary General.

After having promised already to provide the answer, Nesirky on October 1 said he didn't understand the question: a list of meetings? Yes, of meetings and topics and whether Ban considers Rajapaksa a personal friend.

How else to explain what Ban's adviser Nicholas Haysom called the “abnormal” summary of the two men's meeting -- which unlike other UN summaries included the President's as well as Ban's words -- and the separate understanding about Rajapaksa issuing his own summary?

Nesirky has still refused to explain how the “abnormal” summary of Ban's meeting with Rajapaksa was produced. Hayson, for one, seemed surprised to see its content.

That Nesirky couldn't or wouldn't explain how it was produced implies that Nesirky was not involved in his preparation. Who was, then?

On the question of Ban's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee's involvement in Sri Lanka, with the Indian army force, Nesirky deemed it “irrelevant” two weeks after saying he would answer it. On October 1, Inner City Press asked if Nesirky had even deigned to ask Ban or his Office about it -- that is, whether Nesirky had the answer and wouldn't provide it, or didn't even have the answer. Even this was not answered.

Nesirky concluded by repeating that there are a lot of other issues than Sri Lanka: the Middle East, Myanmar...

After Inner City Press agreed but noted that Sri Lanka is the only country in which Ban has been burned in effigy - and from which people protested his speech at a midtown Manhattan hotel -- and that an “abnormal” summary of his meeting with the President had been issued, Nesirky asked if Inner City Press was saying that because of the burning in effigy, the summary was different. Perhaps it was a rhetorical question.

© Inner City Press

Read More

Summary only

Permanent army divisions in each district

By Ramesh Warallegama | Lakbima News
.............................................................................................................................................................................................

A decision has been taken to establish at least one army division and an STF camp permanently in each district, said Army Commander Major General Jagath Jayasuriya yesterday at Anuradhapura.

He was speaking at the Sri Lanka Army flag blessing ceremony held in Anuradhapura and said that the plan to increase the presence of military personnel in the south is a part of the new national security arrangement conceptualized by Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. “The army is set to take over the security of the East from the STF and one army division will be permanently stationed in each district. As a first step, a division will be established in Hambanthota, 12th division, to undertake new security challenges,” he said.

With this move the police will have the backing of the STF and the army to control any unrest. The army also plans to withdraw from government and private buildings they were currently occupying by December 2010 to establish permanent bases.

“The Chinese government has granted us 981 pre-constructed buildings and soldiers are to be stationed in them by early next year. The army will commence military training courses for foreign students from January, 5, 2011 at Commando School, Special Forces Academy, Sniper Training School and at the Maduruoya Training Centre,” he added. Four batches will be taken in for training.

The Army expects participants from India, Pakistan, USA and Bangladesh. The Sri Lanka Army flag blessing ceremony was held for the 61st time at the Sri Maha Bodhi in Anuradhapura.

© Lakbima News

Read More

Summary only

More gloom than glory in New York visit

By ST Diplomatic Editor | The Sunday Times
.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Sri Lanka did not cover itself with political glory during the UN summit last week. President Mahinda Rajapaksa's reception at the Empire Room of the Waldorf Astoria did not attract any prominent world leaders -- with the exception of Cyprus, Fiji and the Maldives raising serious doubts over the efficacy of the Ministry of External Affairs.

Contrary to earlier reports, it was Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki who had attended and not President Mahmoud Ahamedinejad. It was only last week, the Sunday Times revealed that the Ministry sent out circulars to heads of Sri Lanka missions abroad in August telling them to arrange for the heads of state of the countries they are posted to meet President Rajapaksa at the UN. The Ministry had not pursued any follow-up action and such meetings became few.

The External Affairs Ministry has also come in for criticism over the reception held at the Empire Room of the Waldorf Astoria. President Rajapaksa last week drew strong criticisms primarily because of its selective invitation list. The list excluded, wittingly or unwittingly, some of the most senior Sri Lanka expatriates, including physicians, engineers, accountants and a whole range of professionals, who have been living in the United States for 25 to 30 years.

The reception was co-sponsored by the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington and the Sri Lanka Mission to the United Nations. As one expat observed the lapse was unforgivable particularly at a time when the government is trying to reach out to them to help in the reconstruction of the country, promote tourism and foreign investment. The invitees, more than 300, included scores of expatriates who were new arrivals to the country.

There was also disappointment among senior Sri Lankan expatriates over a large number of empty seats at the UN General Assembly when President Rajapaksa spoke. They said that the External Affairs Ministry should have carried out a vigorous drive to ensure delegates from other countries were present when he spoke.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh skipped both the UN summit and the General Assembly sessions this year. There were jumbo delegations or luxury stretch limousines for Indian delegates either.

Still Manmohan Singh picked up the 2010 'World Statesman Award' in absentia. This was given by the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, an inter-faith coalition of business, religious and foreign policy leaders. Additionally, India, along with Brazil and South Africa (a triumvirate called IBSA) picked up the 2010 Millennium Development Goals award for South-South cooperation at a glittering ceremony at the same Waldorf Astoria, where the Sri Lanka delegation was holed up.

Paying a tribute to the Indian premier, former U.S. Under Secretary of State William Burns said: "There could truly be no better choice, and no better model of what integrity and statesmanship are all about on the world stage.

India's External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna was one of the few Foreign Ministers to be invited to President Barack Obama's reception for heads of state: an indication of India's political clout in the international arena.

© The Sunday Times

Read More

Summary only

Sri Lanka: Promoting tyranny

By Tisaranee Gunasekara | The Sunday Leader
.............................................................................................................................................................................................

“Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people…” — Charlie Chaplin The Dictator

President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s speech to the UN General Assembly consisted of the usual banalities and platitudes, with one outstanding exception. That exception was a perniciously riveting idea symbolic and symbiotic of the Rajapaksa ethos, a transformative concept which, if implemented, would negate much of the progress made in the sphere of human rights in the last few centuries and normalise tyranny in the name of anti-terrorism.

Waving the banner of ‘anti-terrorism’, President Rajapaksa (who flew to New York with a 100 plus delegation) opined that international humanitarian laws should be changed to give states carte blanche to combat terrorism.

The Rajapaksa proposal would normalise excess and enable sovereign states to act as they wish, unconstrained by laws and norms, against whomever or whatever they designate ‘terrorist’. It would thus empower all states at the expense of their own populaces and strong states at the expense of weaker ones. The Rajapaksa proposal, if implemented, would herald the jungle.

In a world shaped by the idea that states can do no wrong in combating terrorism, regimes will be able to persecute democratic opponents by the simple expedient of attaching the terrorist tag to them. Such a world view would render permissible every act of illegality or immorality, so long as it is committed under the banner of anti-terrorism. Rulers will be able to violate the rights of citizens with total impunity, with no concerns about national or international accountability.

In brief, the Rajapaksa proposal would empower states to use unbridled terror as a tool of governance or of foreign policy, under the banner of anti-terrorism. The worst features of American foreign policy or Israel’s policy towards Palestinians, the abhorrent internal practices of countries such as Myanmar and Zimbabwe will become the new global norm. And in this anti-democratic world, the Rajapaksas would be able to pursue their dynastic agenda, with total impunity.

The Rajapaksas enjoy impunity within the borders of Sri Lanka. Constitutionally only the president is above the law; but in reality this exemption is extended to the entire Ruling Family and most of its acolytes, as demonstrated by l’affaire Mervyn Silva.

Thanks to a servile UPFA, a weak opposition, a pliant media, a flexible judiciary and a malleable society, the Rajapaksas face little or no impediment nationally to their single-minded pursuit of absolute and long term power. To the extent there is any constraint on the Ruling Family, it is international, the fear of being held accountable by some international tribunal, someday. This is hardly a significant threat let alone an immediate one, but it is something the Rajapaksas would like to see removed for good. If their right to impunity is accepted internationally, the Rajapaksas would feel totally empowered to act unrestrainedly towards their opponents in particular and towards all Sri Lankans in general.

An Anti-democratic Ethos

Being cognizant of the Rajapaksa proposal is important not because the international community will accept it but because it demonstrates the endemically tyrannical nature of the Rajapaksa vision and mission. This proposal reveals the Ruling Family’s yearning for absolute, unconditional and eternal impunity. The successful transformation of a democracy into a family oligarchy requires the creation of a new value system with absolute, unquestioning obedience of the ruled to the rulers as its leitmotiv. Those citizens who refuse to abide by this cardinal rule will be ostracized from the national community. In the present national and international climate what better epithet to justify such persecution as that of terrorist?

There may be internationally accepted definitions of terrorism but the label ‘terrorist’ is an extremely amorphous one which can and has been bestowed on a wide variety of organisations and individuals, from Osama bin Laden and the Tigers to Nelson Mandela and the Suffragists.

That is why it is dangerous to permit a state to stick the label of terrorism on any persons/entities at will and combat them unrestrainedly, without having to bother about humanitarian laws or moral considerations. Such permissiveness would enable would-be-despotic regimes to undermine democratic systems from within by imposing the epithet of terrorism on even unarmed opponents.

Imagine the Rajapaksas armed with the sort of carte blanche the President advocated at the UN. Even without such a licence, the regime stretches the law to the limit and observes it in the breach in combating democratic critics and opponents. Suspects dying under suspicious circumstances in police custody and family members being arrested in the place of suspects have become Lankan norms. The registration of Tamils continue, even post-war, as do attempts to suppress the media. The only reason the opposition is being tolerated to the extent it is being tolerated is because of its total ineffectiveness. The regime moves with ruthless efficacy against any opponent or act of opposition it deems effective, the incarceration of Gen. Fonseka and the persecution of a printing press owner and his family for printing a poster comparing the President to Hitler being the latest cases in point.

The Rajapaksas tend to justify their anti-democratic policies and deeds by flavouring them with nationalistic and patriotic rhetoric. International humanitarian norms are castigated as imperialist constraints on Sri Lanka’s right to defend herself and her people. For instance, the regime refused a request to treat 8,000 Tiger suspects in custody according to international law, and justified this departure by invoking national sovereignty: “We are an independent nation. We are not going to bow down to foreign powers in order to get aid” (BBC – 28.9.2010).

Lofty words hiding an ignoble reality; the regime while incarcerating 8,000 ordinary Tamils as Tiger suspects is treating as estimable guests known Tiger leaders such as Kumaran Pathmanathan and Daya Master. The real criterion therefore is not whether one was a Tiger or not but whether one is willing to support the Rajapaksas or not. Life can be pleasant for those who are willing to submit to the Rajapaksas and exceedingly unpleasant if not downright dangerous for those who are not, as the curiously similar fates of the 8,000 Tiger suspects and the Army Commander who defeated the Tigers clearly indicate. When national interest is equated with Rajapaksa interest and patriotism with loyalty to the Rajapaksas, any opponent of the Ruling Family can be deemed a terrorist and a traitor and treated as such.

In a country where citizens are treated as subjects who must obey their rulers unconditionally, there is little room not just for democratic rights but even for individual consciences or basic decencies. The arrest of the aged grandmother of Danuna Tillakaratne, the son-in-law of Gen. Fonseka, for her failure to betray her grandson to the authorities is the clearest possible indication that in Rajapaksa Sri Lanka loyalty to the Ruling Family is the only absolute virtue.

This supreme duty surpasses every other consideration including family ties, including a grandparent’s unconditional love for a grandchild, which many of us would know from experience. Under such conditions, national sovereignty is little more than a euphemism for the right of the Ruling Family to act at will. Any more freedom for the Rajapaksas would mean less freedom for the Lankan people a great leap towards tyrannical rule.

© The Sunday Leader

Read More

Summary only