News 360.lk
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Military officers from countries such as Pakistan, Malaysia, German, Turkey and Nigeria, who are following Security and War, related courses in the Pakistani academy are also included in the visiting delegation.
Pakistani embassy in Colombo issuing a statement said the delegation is led by Brig. Akhtar Jammil Rao and Defense Adviser of Pakistan to Sri Lanka Colonel Sheryar Pervaiz Butt.
The delegation also consist of senior officers from Pakistan’s Armed Forces and Civil Services.
The ongoing visit which has started on the 16th of this month is aimed at gaining an overview of the defense, economic, domestic and foreign policies of Sri Lanka and to explore areas of mutual interest for enhancing cooperation in various spheres.
The National Defense University which is the premier institution of Pakistan established its Sri Lankan Chapter during last month.
© News 360.lk
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Pakistan’s Defense delegation touring Sri Lanka
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Sri Lanka's Central Bank under fire for fixing statistics
Xinhua-ANI | Yahoo! News
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
United National Party MP Harsha de Silva who is also an economist told media that the government was misleading international organizations and fellow Sri Lankans by calculating the per capita income of the country so that it would show an unrealistically high figure.
"The government is portraying the per capita income as evidence of the country's economic development but in reality it is calculated using creative accounting," he said, adding that this was a result of the Central Bank losing its independence and becoming increasingly politicized.
In 2011, Sri Lanka's per capita income was 2,836 U.S. dollars but this was calculated at 110.54 rupees a dollar, which is much lower than the average posted that year, he insisted.
Silva emphasized that the government had not taken into consideration the rapid deterioration of the rupee in November by 3 percent, which grew to a whopping 14 percent in February.
© ANI
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
India gives Sri Lanka lessons in realpolitik
By J.S. Tissainayagam | Global Post
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
The resolution, calling on Colombo to investigate war crimes allegedly committed by its own troops and Tamil rebels in the final months of fighting in 2009, is admittedly weak. It is nowhere near an international investigation that the UN and many in the international community argued for.
The resolution’s lack of vitality is partly due to an amendment moved by India on the original US draft. It was to ensure that any UN oversight on investigation into war crimes would take place only with Colombo’s concurrence.
Following the vote, India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wrote to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse. Singh said, “Your Excellency would be aware that we spared no effort and were successful in introducing an element of balance in the language of the resolution.” This fuelled the theory that domestic political reality had spurred New Delhi to first dilute the resolution and then vote for it.
The domestic political reality was the wave of indignation sweeping India’s Tamil Nadu state, where Tamils reacted angrily to mounting evidence of atrocities committed on their ethnic brethren in Sri Lanka by that country’s military. This led to the two most important political parties in Tamil Nadu – one which was a constituent of Singh’s ruling coalition – threatening drastic action unless India voted in favor of the Geneva resolution.
While it is true public opinion in Tamil Nadu pressured New Delhi to vote for the UNHRC resolution, it is only one reason. Other national interests were also at play emanating from international, regional and bilateral concerns.
Internationally, India’s reluctance to support democracy movements and struggles for human rights in different parts of the world has caused misgiving, especially as it seeks a permanent seat in a reformed UN Security Council. This has been referred to by commentators from India’s liberal establishment to US President Barack Obama during his visit to India in November 2010.
Of regional consequences to India are Sri Lanka’s moves to let China inveigle its way into the Gulf of Mannar, the narrow strip of sea separating India and Sri Lanka, in the guise of drilling oil. Earlier, although Sri Lanka appeared to take pains to treat both India and China – Asian giants competing for influence in the Indian Ocean – equally, recent reports say Colombo’s relations with Beijing run deeper. India is reportedly perturbed, not for lost commercial opportunities but because the Chinese presence in the Gulf of Mannar is a security threat.
Bilaterally, when India helped Sri Lanka destroy the armed Tamil rebellion, it wished to balance this policy by pushing Colombo to create institutions for minimal power-sharing with its Tamil population. But Colombo’s stonewalling on this has denied the project’s success. This has exasperated New Delhi not only because it perpetuates instability in Sri Lanka, but also because Colombo’s indifference challenges India’s regional pre-eminence.
An opportunity for India to make good these reversals without great cost to itself arrived with the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka.
First, as the resolution was US-sponsored, it had the US’s imprimatur and was therefore more or less assured of safe passage through the UNHRC. It meant, unlike in 2009 when India had to lobby the UNHRC for a pro-Sri Lanka resolution, it did not have to do anything this time.
Second, the UNHRC resolution was a good opportunity to test Sri Lanka’s bluff of many years – that the more New Delhi proved an irksome neighbor, the closer into Beijing’s embrace would Colombo go.
New Delhi was prepared to issue this challenge because Sri Lanka is India’s biggest trading partner, a position China cannot replace. In financing capital-intensive projects, while China’s investments are much larger, Sri Lanka is in no position to reject Indian aid. While China continues to provide military hardware to Sri Lanka, India’s military relations with Sri Lanka are much wider including joint military exercises, sharing intelligence and training. More than everything else, the presence of a trans-border Tamil population with cultural and linguistic ties, divided by a mere 22 miles of sea, is an advantage that China cannot balance. The list goes on, but let me not belabour the point.
Therefore, New Delhi feels there are limits to Colombo moving into Beijing’s orbit. And, even if it did happen, there is precious little Sri Lanka could do that would affect India’s vital interests. Drilling oil in the Gulf of Mannar might be the only exception.
In comparison, India’s handling of Burma (Myanmar) was different. Despite the US and others chiding New Delhi for remaining silent in the face of Naypyidaw’s crackdown on pro-democracy activists in 2007 and the extension of Aung San Su Kyi’s confinement in 2009, New Delhi did not reverse its stand. That was because the energy resources and the military and strategic influence China had over Burma made India realize relations with it had to be carefully handled.
Evidently New Delhi handles countries differently even when they call themselves Beijing’s friends. It is confident that handling Colombo needs no kid gloves now. How Colombo reacts to this demonstration of realpolitik will go a long way in determining future Indo-Sri Lanka relations.
J.S. Tissainayagam is a Weatherhead Fellow in International Affairs at Harvard University. He was Nieman Fellow in Journalism (2010-11) also at Harvard. Previously, he worked for a number of English national newspapers in Sri Lanka.
© Global Post
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Sri Lanka's leader keeps stirring the pot
By Hamish McDonald | Brisbane Times
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Through clever detective work, Kaarthikeyan's team from the Central Bureau of Investigation identified the assassin and traced the lines of the plot back to the Tamil Tiger movement then controlling the north of nearby Sri Lanka. Arrests were made and warrants issued against senior Tiger leaders.
Kaarthikeyan is no sympathiser of the Tamil Tigers, who went down to bloody defeat by the Sri Lankan armed forces in May 2009. But like many Indians, particularly those in Tamil Nadu state, he is dismayed by the arrogance of the Sri Lankan government in victory.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''Where there is no justice, there can be no peace,'' Kaarthikeyan told me in an email this week. ''Continued injustice and discrimination against minority Tamils gave rise to the birth of insurgency in Sri Lanka … If Sri Lanka or, for that matter, any society perpetuates injustice it is an indirect encouragement for violent movements to be born and grow.''
Nearly three years after the Tigers' defeat, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has ignored the recommendations of his own commission into the lessons of the 25-year insurgency.
The rule of law continues to be set aside. A huge military machine is yet to be stood down. Glaring war crimes remain to be investigated. Tamils are treated as a subjugated people. Emergency security measures continue, turned against Rajapaksa's critics even among the Sinhala majority. For this reason, India took the unusual step, at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva last month, of voting with many Western nations in favour of a resolution calling on Sri Lanka to apply its own reconciliation recommendations.
It was a mild resolution, with India watering down one part that called for a UN war crimes office to be opened in Colombo. Yet Rajapaksa sent a team of ministers and officials to Geneva with orders to block it at all costs. The delegation quickly became notorious for its efforts to intimidate human rights activists who turned up to lobby for the resolution.
Another indication of Rajapaksa's blithe contempt for world opinion came when his government assigned Major-General Shavendra Silva to a UN panel on peace-keeping. Silva was the commander of the 58th Division in the final battle against the Tigers. His troops are alleged to have gunned down Tiger leaders waving a white flag who had been promised safe passage across the battle line, allegedly on orders passed to Silva by Defence Minister Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the president's brother.
To much outrage in Colombo, the Canadian diplomat heading the UN panel, Louise Frechette, threw Silva out, saying his participation was ''not appropriate or helpful''.
Colombo's reaction to the human rights council censure has been one of victimisation and outrage, as shown in local newspaper headlines: ''We will not let anyone intervene in Sri Lanka's affairs''; ''Be united to defeat foreign conspiracies''; ''Do not give India any economic concessions''; ''NGO conspiracy to create anarchy''; ''US resolution has set a very dangerous precedent''. One minister threatened to break the limbs of journalists.
As the even-handed Colombo legal analyst Jehan Perera noted, even many non-government Sri Lankans found it galling how former Tiger organisers in the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora, who kept silent about the Tigers' conscription of children and use of civilians as shields during the war, ''metamorphised'' into human rights activists at Geneva.
But he points out Rajapaksa's ingratitude. ''When it fought the war against the LTTE, the Sri Lankan government did receive the political and military support of virtually the entire international community, including the United States that sponsored the UNHRC resolution and India which voted for it,'' Perera says. ''This political and military support was given to Sri Lanka on the understanding that after the end of the war there would be structural reforms that addressed the political roots of the conflict.''
So far, however, it's been business as usual for the Rajapaksas in Colombo, and Australia has just been given a taste of how it works. An Australian citizen of Sri Lankan origin, Premakumar Gunaratnam, who had gone back to help set up a new left-wing political party, was abducted by armed men last Saturday. Another party activist, Dimuthu Attygalle, was removed at the same time.
Thanks to Canberra's intervention at high levels of the Sri Lankan government, the two were dumped on the streets of Colombo on Tuesday morning, still alive, and Gunaratnam immediately deported. Their accounts put the case as the latest in nearly 60 abductions of a spectrum of government critics in the past few months, carried out by armed men in ''white vans''. Attygalle reports the men who blindfolded and took her off in a white van spoke in police jargon and addressed their chiefs as ''sir''.
Another abduction pinpoints who is running the white vans. On March 26, businessman Sagara Senaratne was abducted by a group that demanded 50 million rupees ($370,000) for his release. But he had a brother-in-law who is a minister in the government, who contacted the president and the defence minister. The driver of the white van got a phone call, and announced: ''Let's dump him.''
As journalist Tisaranee Gunasekara noted in the Sunday Leader newspaper, the businessman was no ingrate. He thanked the Rajapaksa brothers for intervening. But, as Gunasekara asked, how did they know who to call?
Meanwhile, four months after it was delivered, Sri Lanka's Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission report is joining a long line of previous such reports gathering dust. It has not even been translated from English into Sinhala and Tamil. It is window dressing. If the Sinhala majority are not protected by law, what hope do the Tamils have?
In India, the retired ace detective Kaarthikeyan can see something like the Tamil Tiger movement rising again.
''If the minorities are not treated equally with the majority,'' he said, ''insurgency is bound to raise its head in the long run.''
Hamish McDonald works as the Asia-Pacific editor of Sydney Morning Herald.
© Brisbane Times
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
It’s all in the family for the Rajapakses
By Suhas Chakma | Tehelka
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
India’s vote generated controversy: The liberals lauded it as a welcome departure suiting its emerging international stature while the usual hawks have condemned the move as a mistake in the geo-politics. Neither position is absolutely true.
Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee may have forgotten that as the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), India was the architect of the UN Convention Against Apartheid of 1965 that established the first intrusive and investigatory mechanism into apartheid practices. India also consistently voted at the UN in favour of the resolution against occupied Arab territories, including Palestine; human rights violations in the occupied Syrian Golan and the Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories. The Arab spring did force India to take positions: voting in favour of the resolution at the UN Security Council on February 4, 2012 which could have meant the regime change in Syria while abstaining at the UNHRC a week later. Geo-politics is not a zero sum game.
Further, how is India’s bilateral intervention different from the UNHRC resolution? In the 1980s, when supporting cross-border insurgents was the part of international diplomacy, India supported Tamil insurgents. India deployed its Peace Keeping Forces.
If Sri Lanka had taken positive measures, there would not have been any need for any intervention from India or the UNHRC. After the annihilation of the LTTE, Sri Lankan government washed its hands off displaced Tamils in camps. The responsibility for their rehabilitation fell on India, which has been building 50,000 houses at the rate of Rs 3.48 lakh per house in the northern and eastern parts.
President Rajapaksa further turned increasingly vengeful, dictatorial and thuggish. General Sarath Fonseka, actual hero of the war against the LTTE was put behind barst. Devolution and national reconciliation were put on the backburner.
Taking advantage of the UNHRC resolution, Sri Lanka decided to withdraw the diplomatic missions in Europe which are not allegedly serving any purpose in obtaining support for Sri Lanka’s national issues. This isolationist approach of turning Sri Lanka into the new hermit kingdom of Asia suits the Rajapakse family that seeks to prolong family rule. After all, no other political family in recent history held such vise-grip control over any country in Asia.
• President Mahinda’s Rajapakse’s son Namal Rajapaksa was elected as a Member of Parliament from the Hambantota district.
• President’s one brother, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is the current secretary of the Ministry of Defence and another brother Basil Rajapaksa serves as the Minister of Economic Development.
• The eldest brother Chamal Rajapaksa serves as the Speaker of the current parliament.
• Other family members hold key posts. President Rajapaska’s nephew, Shashindra Rajapaksa is the Chief Minister of the Uva Province.
• Shameendra Rajapaksa, second son of Chamal Rajapaksa is the director of Sri Lankan Airlines while Rajapaksa’s brother-in-law Nishantha Wickramasinghe is the chair of Sri Lankan Airlines.
• President’s first cousin, Jaliya Wickramasuriya, a tea-businessman by profession, has been picked to become Sri Lanka’s ambassador to the United States since 2008.
• The president’s other first cousin, Udayanga Weeratunga who is businessman by profession has been appointed as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Russia since 2006.
• That’s not all. Colonel (Retired) Prasanna Wickramasuriya who is also the first cousin of the president serves as the chair, Airport & Aviation Services Ltd, Sri Lanka.
• The family controls every aspect of the lives of the Sri Lankans. And the Constitution has been amended to remove two term limits for the President.
Suhas Chakma is director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights. The opinions expressed here are his own.
© Tehelka
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Human Rights in Sri Lanka: A Perennial Question Mark
By Apratim Mukarji | Mainstream
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Among his many qualities like an unbounded energy to work, simplicity and friendliness was his remarkable proximity to the Tamils, and still more remarkable was his easy flow of the Tamil language. He was a rare Sinhala politician who had consciously cultivated his relations with the Tamils.
Today’s situation is a complete reversal of the above. More than Presidents J.R. Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa, it is President Rajapaksa who is being increasingly and widely perceived as a fearsome embodiment of Sinhala nationalism, packaged as Sri Lankan nationalism, and a far worse perpetrator of human rights violations. While dictatorial practices have traditionally distorted democracy in Sri Lanka, the extent of human rights violations being witnessed under the present presidency—irrespective of the ethnicity of the victims— is unprecedented.
However, as far as the present government’s conscious failure to go ahead with the reconciliation and rehabilitation process in the aftermath of the conclusion of the ethnic war is concerned, it should be borne in mind that there are precedents in Sri Lankan history. The last bout of prolonged peace took place during 2002-04 when the war was no longer raging and the government in Colombo had plenty of opportunities to reach out to the Tamils in the the north and east.
Nothing of the sort happened. It was inexpli-cable that the longest lasting peace did not yield normalisation of life in the war zone. The Sri Lankan Government continued with the same arrangements as during the hostilities (which amounted to treat the north and east as hostile territory), and, the most surprising of all, the media in the south did not make moves to report on the kind of life being led in the north and east. A handful of Sinhala academics and practitioners of performing arts (such as intrepid theatre groups) ventured into Tamil land trying to build up and expand bridges of friendship, cooperation and understanding. Quite a few of these honest citizens are now suffering the displeasure of the Sinhala establishment.
WHILE the government remained unresponsive to the continuing opportunity to reach out to the Tamils in the north and east, it allowed Sinhala nationalists at the same time to make well-planned inroads into the area to strengthen the case for a de-merger of the provinces. For obvious reasons, Sinhala Sanvidhanaya, the strongest nationalist organisation, began a signature campaign in Trincomalee in mid-July 2003 to urge the demerger. The organisation said that the temporary merger in force since 1987 under the India-Sri Lanka Accord should be cancelled and two provincial councils for the north and the east should be established. Within a month the then President Chandrika Kumaratunga (who headed the Sri Lanka Freedom Party) issued a warning to the effect that she would not hesitate to demerge the north-east province if the United National Front Government (led by her arch-enemy Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe) failed to quell the violence and restore peace in the east.
This was the period when the Norwegian mission to monitor the ceasefire was being increasingly perceived as openly favouring the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Thus, the merger of the north and east under Indian pressure, which was never accepted by the Sinhala commu-nity, became a tool with dual roles to thrash the political rivals in the south and to prepare the Tamils for an eventual de-merger.
The last major opportunity to heal the Tamil psyche came in the midst of the devastation caused by the tsunami on December 26, 2004. While the Indonesian Government and the Aceh rebels cooperated in rebuilding the tsunami-devastated areas in Indonesia, there were hopes that a similar joint effort by the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE might usher in a period of reconciliation and reconstruction. In the latter case, however, the villain of the peace proved to be the LTTE which, alarmed by the excellent rescue operations carried out by the Sri Lankan defence forces in the affected areas, was determined to stymie the growing positive sentiments among the Tamils and Muslims. Six months into the posturings and negotiations, the government was seen to have lost its sense of urgency in rebuilding the devastated areas. The last opportunity to bring the Sinhala and Tamil communities closer to each other was then irretrievably lost even though Kumaratunga initiated a comprehensive peace plan in 2005, but by then Sri Lankan politics had rendered peace prospects much murkier.
ALL these factors no longer exist with the end of the war and collapse of the LTTE and Rajapaksa’s unchallenged sway over the country. It is truly tragic that the return of peace has also coincided with the flowering of a repressive and intolerant regime from which all the communities now suffer. Even a brief recounting of the measures taken by the government that qualify it to be branded as such suffices. All those in Sri Lanka who have publicly campaigned to highlight the atrocities committed during the last phase of the war are now in serious jeopardy as they have been virtually identified by the state media as “traitors”. For intrepid media-persons, however, risking their lives for exposure of lawless actions by the government and ruling party has been traditionally part of their careers. Some have escaped abroad but others are still in the country and face grave consequences. The repression is clearly aimed to silence human rights workers and mediapersons.
As for the situation in the north-east, reports say that the zone is being increasingly placed under still tighter Army control, thus fully ignoring the recommendation of the government-appointed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to demilitarise the area. The government’s explanation that it cannot risk another rebellion there does not facilitate the return of normal life for the indigenous population. Settlement of Sinhala Army settlers from the south is on in full swing. This is being accompanied by the construc-tion of Buddhist stupas in the region, the logic being that Sinhala settlers (mostly Buddhists) need facilities to perform their religious rites.
On the other hand, the immediate necessities of Tamils like housing, farming, small trading and education are being ignored. Soon it will be three years since the end of the war, and the government has not yet prepared a satisfactory list of missing persons in the north-east.
Colombo’s sole emphasis appears to be on economic development of the north-east, which is obviously one of the urgent needs. Unfortunately, Tamils view this priority as more to facilitate Sinhala settlements than to rebuild the broken lives of Tamils. There is now increasing fear that in the wake of the adoption of the US-sponsored resolution on the war crimes committed by the armed forces, the extent of repression would intensify.
Apratim Mukarji is a scholar of South and Central Asian affairs.
© Mainstream
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Sri Lanka: Two missing activists held at the Police Welfare building
Lanka News Web
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
The new state of the art building is located opposite the Manning Market in Pettah and was built when retired DIG Combalavithana was heading the Police Welfare Division. Although the building was constructed utilizing millions of rupees to be used for police welfare work, it is now being used as a torture chamber for persons who are abducted on the Defence Secretary’s directives.
The ground floor and the 6th floor of the building are operated under the supervision of DIG in-charge of Colombo, Anura Senanayake. Only a few police personnel whose names have been given to the security can enter this division and special security has been deployed to the building.
The torture chamber is being managed by one “Hangman Perera” who is a police inspector loyal to Senanayake. Perera was assigned the post of sub inspector in the sub police service and within two years was absorbed to the permanent cadre and promoted as an inspector of police on a directive by the Defence Secretary.
This police officer has no clue about police administration work and serves as an active member of the Defence Secretary’s special unit. He is linked to many of the abductions that have been carried in the past few months.
We first published about this inspector of police in January 2011 as the officer who had spearheaded the operation to abduct and torture journalist Poddala Jayantha.
Lalith and Kugan, who were abducted last December 9th, are being held at the Police Welfare building under this IP’s supervision. Lalith and Kugan are being continuously questioned while being held in one room on the 6th floor. The government has so far remained silent about the two persons even when the Habeas Corpus filed on them before the Court of Appeal is taken up because the torture marks in their bodies are yet very visible.
We reiterate that reports that they have been murdered are completely false and they are being held on the 6th floor of the Police Welfare building.
Also, Frontline Socialist Party members Premakumar Gunaratnam and Dimuthu Attygalle were also questioned in a secret room near the car park of this building.
Lalith and Kugan had been asked to identify them. They have been interrogated at length since the statements made by Lalith and Kugan and Kumar and Dimuthu were contradictory.
Kumar had also been taken to the torture chamber at the Welisara Navy Camp and interrogated at length. He was brought the Colombo Crimes Division (CCD) afterwards.
© LNW
Friday, April 13, 2012
Wife of missing Sri Lankan journalist speaks to WSWS
Photo courtesy: vikalpa.org
By Panini Wijesiriwardane and Wasantha Rupasinghe | World Socialist Web Site
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Prageeth Ekneligoda disappeared on 24 January 2010, after he went to report on Sri Lankan presidential election meetings. Police investigations have drawn the usual blanks and a habeas corpus case, originally filed by Sandhya Ekneligoda in February 2010, is only now being heard at the Colombo Magistrates Court.
Prageeth Ekneligoda supported former Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka, the main bourgeois rival of President Mahinda Rajapakse, during the 2010 presidential election. Fonseka was arbitrarily arrested immediately after the poll and imprisoned on various frame-up charges. Ekneligoda frequently criticised the Rajapakse administration—especially the president and his brothers—over injustice and corruption and is believed to have been disappeared because of these exposures.
Over the past two years, 50-year-old Sandhya Ekneligoda, the mother of two teenage boys, has written to numerous local and international human rights organisations, including the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), seeking their help. She also sent letters to President Rajapakse and other state officials, who have ignored her appeals.
“After the disappearance of my husband,” Ekneligoda told the WSWS, “the government began telling lies in order to divert the sentiment of the masses. Former Attorney General Mohan Peiris told the UNHRC that Prageeth had sought refuge in a foreign country, so I wrote him a letter asking about my husband’s whereabouts. I never received a reply.”
Ekneligoda explained what happened after she participated in a side event at the recent UNHCR sessions in Geneva. The UNHRC adopted a US-sponsored resolution over Sri Lankan human rights abuses in its war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Sri Lankan government bitterly opposed the resolution, despite its very limited character.
Ekneligoda said: “With the help of international human rights organisations I went to Geneva to tell my story to the world. For the understanding of those in attendance, I tried to explain the anti-democratic and repressive environment that is increasingly developing in Sri Lanka. I thought this would help to make people aware of the roots of my husband’s disappearance.
“Speaking about the militarisation of the country, I explained how the military is occupying the north and east. I presented some pictures and described how the families who were displaced during the war are now living in tents, huts and damaged structures, while by contrast there are growing numbers of tourist hotels and war monuments.”
Ekneligoda told the WSWS that she was harassed by several members of the Sri Lankan delegation. UK Sinhala Association president Douglas Wickramarathne attempted to ridicule her, declaring: “How can you see yourself as a victim? You came here in a happy mood.”
Echoing the Rajapakse government, Wickramarathne and several other Sri Lankan delegates accused her, and others participating in the Geneva event, of being “traitors.” Sri Lanka’s state-owned press and television networks published their photographs while media minister Mervin Silva, who is infamous for threatening journalists, publicly branded several Sri Lankan reporters and human right activists in Geneva as “bastards.”
Silva told a Sri Lankan public meeting that “these people” were “betraying us in Geneva.” He named Sunanda Deshapriya, Nimalka Fernando and Poddala Jayantha, and boasted: “I’m the one who chased [journalist] Poddala Jayantha from Sri Lanka.” The media minister declared that he would not hesitate to “break the limbs” of the named journalists “if they set foot” on the island. Confident that his threats would be endorsed by Rajapakse, Silva said his ministerial position was granted by Rajapakse and “will remain unchanged while he is in power.”
Ekneligoda told the WSWS that Silva’s outburst was an “attempt to provoke the Sinhala racists against us. Our lives are in a grave danger. What’s the wrong I did? The only thing I’ve done is taken the path of democratic rights.”
Explaining the official response to her husband’s disappearance, she said: “On the night my husband failed to return home I went to Homagama police station to report it but they refused to open a case. The police finally accepted my complaint two weeks later.” When she later attempted to get a copy of her complaint, police officers told her they had lost the logbook in which it had been entered. In August 2011, the appeal courts decided to take up her February 2010 habeas corpus case and these proceedings are currently underway in the Magistrates Court (MC).
“On March 26, when the case was taken to the MC, I was questioned by the Deputy Solicitor General Shavendra Fernando who represented the state,” Ekneligoda said. “He asked more questions about my visit to Geneva. My counsel pointed out that this had nothing to do with the case, but he kept asking me why I went to Geneva, who sponsored me, how much money I was getting per day, and so on.”
Ekneligoda told the WSWS that even after explaining the purpose of her Geneva visit—to raise concerns about her missing husband—the state counsel accused her of lobbying against the government and the country. “It was a direct violation of my democratic rights,” she added.
Prageeth Ekneligoda’s disappearance is part of broader assault on democratic rights that has intensified under the Rajapakse government. The police-state laws developed during the civil war remain in place. The denunciation of government opponents as “unpatriotic” takes places as “disappearances” by pro-government death squads continue.
Various Sri Lankan human rights organisations claim that appeals to the US and other international powers can protect basic rights. This is an illusion. The US sponsored the recent UNHRC resolution not to defend democratic rights but as a means for exerting pressure on the Rajapakse government to distance itself from China.
In the past ten years, 17 journalists and other media workers have been killed and around 50 journalists have fled Sri Lanka in fear of their lives.
© WSWS
Friday, April 13, 2012
The Gap walks a tightrope in Sri Lanka
by Sonya Hubbard | Footnoted
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Jaeger and Natkunam think that the Gap should not engage in trade with Sri Lanka until it ceases violating human rights. The country, called Ceylon until 1972 and now officially known as the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, is a tiny teardrop-shaped island in the Indian Ocean, slightly bigger than the state of West Virginia, close to the southeast corner of India.
The human rights violations Jaeger and Natkunam refer to are real and brutal, stemming from the war that lasted almost three decades between the government and the separatist group known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE or the “Tamil Tigers”). Jaeger and Natkunam focus on the crimes committed by the Sri Lankan government; however, this March, 2011 report published by the United Nations (an executive summary is available here, if you prefer) makes it clear that both sides are guilty of unspeakably horrific conduct.
The proponents argue that The Gap should heed the recommendation of the U. S. Senate’s Appropriations Committee, which they say “has proposed that international institutions vote against any loan, agreement or other financial support (except humanitarian aid) for Sri Lanka unless it complies with standards set by international law.” One of The Gap’s major suppliers, Brandix, is located there and may soon expand its operations. (According to the 2011 proxy, unnamed shareholders submitted a similar proposal last year, although they missed the filing deadline and the resolution was not voted on.)
Jaeger and Natkunam submitted the resolution because:“We are concerned that a reputable company such as Gap Inc, which is one of the largest garment manufacturers in Sri Lanka, will appear to endorse the crimes perpetrated by the Government of Sri Lanka, if it continues its trade with that country. We believe that this claim is not merely theoretical since Gap Inc is providing Sri Lanka with the foreign exchange that keeps its massive military viable.”
Needless to say, The Gap’s board doesn’t see things the same way as Jaeger and Natkunam do. The board says that it shares the proponents’ concern for “the protection of human rights and is committed to advancing the rights of garment workers around the world.” Nevertheless, it urges shareholders to vote against the resolution.
The Gap’s directors acknowledge that the allegations of abuse committed by the Sri Lankan government are serious, but it adds that “apparel production in the country benefits its citizens.” Apparel production provides employment and helps to improve the stability and economy in Sri Lanka, the company says, and it “only contract[s] with factories that employ workers regardless of ethnic background”, working to ensure that all workers aren’t discriminated against and have fair working conditions. The proxy adds that The Gap requires contracted garment factories to abide by its “Code of Vendor Conduct” and in 2010 created a “Human Rights Policy.”
The Gap has supported a number of social programs in Sri Lanka; but since 2009 its focus has been to provide “life skills and enhanced technical skills education to [about 550] female garment workers to help them advance in the workplace and in their personal lives.” The program, known as Personal Advancement and Career Enhancement, or “P.A.C.E.”, received recognition by former president Bill Clinton as an effective way to equip poor women with the skills they need to improve their lives and those of their families. The proxy adds that The Gap plans to expand the program to other facilities in Sri Lanka later this year.
There’s no easy answer to this resolution as we see it. If the U.N.’s report is accurate, the Sri Lankan government is still unwilling to account for its past behavior, which included shelling hospitals, murder, torture, causing critics to “disappear,” depriving people of humanitarian aid, and much, much more. On the other hand, punishing the government has huge repercussions on the people, too. There is evidence from many sources that when women have access to education and employment opportunities, the standard of living improves not just for themselves and their families, but also for their communities and nations.
It may be one short line on the proxy card, but this resolution could have a big impact, regardless of which side wins.
© Footnoted
Friday, April 13, 2012
Sri Lanka: The disappeared
Banyan | The Economist
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Elsewhere in the city, another FSP leader went missing. Early on April 7th a colleague found Premakumar Gunaratnam gone from his home amid signs of struggle. He was also freed after a few days, but “not out of the kindness of his abductors’ hearts”, says a party member. He (and presumably Ms Attygalle) got away because he has Australian citizenship and his wife had alerted authorities in Canberra. Robyn Mudie, Australia’s high commissioner in Colombo, then asked Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa—the widely-feared brother of the president—to help find the missing Australian. As pressure grew, Mr Gunaratnam was dumped on a roadside, then deported.
Their fates might have been worse. Two others from the group, who were snatched in December, remain missing. A terrifying spate of abductions (as reported by The Economist) of critics of the government continues unchecked. It is “mindboggling how brazen and frequent” the disappearances have become, says a rights activist who dares not be named. Groundviews, a citizen journalism website, counts 29 abductions reported by local media in February and March. It tallies 56 abductions in the past six months. These have taken place even as Sri Lanka fought a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council that called for it to “credibly investigate widespread allegations of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances”. The resolution passed with a clear majority on March 22nd.
No one has offered proof of a government role in the abductions, but circumstantial evidence suggests it. The high number of cases, use of weapons, the daring of the perpetrators and police inaction all point to a degree of official direction. Nor is it clear who else could possibly wish to kidnap human-rights activists. The main opposition United National Party says that country’s image as is being tarnished as the government lets abductions go on.
Others are more direct. The Lawyers for Democracy, another activist group, says it is reasonable to infer that the defence authorities, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s men, were involved in these abductions. Another case suggests so. Last month Sagara Senaratne, a politician and businessman, was snatched at a busy roundabout by men in a white van. Mr Senaratne, from the ruling party, is the brother-in-law of a minister. His friends told the authorities and he was released. He says that intervention by the president, the defence secretary and his in-law saved his life. But rights groups naturally ask how such powerful men knew whom to contact to get him free. And precisely how, too, did Gotabaya Rajapaksa help with the Australian request to find Mr Gunaratnam? Such mysteries go unanswered—and worries grow about Sri Lankan democracy.
© The Economist
This site is best viewed with firefox
Visit the JDS New Website
Read the urgent alerts - act now!
Sri Lanka's Killing Fields
No Impunity for Enforced Disappearances
UN REPORT ON SRI LANKA
where is prageeth?
Amnesty: Failures of Sri Lanka's LLRC
Permanent Peopls's Tribunal on Sri Lanka - Final Report
Sivaram: A walk down memory lane
Remembering Lasantha
Subscribe to JDS newsfeeds
UN EXPERTS conclusion backs the JDS video
SL Execution Video : The truth comes out
A legacy unforgotten
Post-war justice in sri lanka : International Commission of Jurists
Evidence of Police Brutality in Sri Lanka
A Study of Police Torture in Sri Lanka
