This is not to present a notion that Israel is right or wrong, or that Sri Lanka is right or wrong but to question UN’s treatment of Member states & the applicability of the UN Charter & the principles of equality & non-discrimination to Member states. UNGA has condemned Israel over 120 times. UNHRC has condemned Israel over 40 times. US has vetoed over 40 Resolutions against Israel but is spearheading resolutions against Sri Lanka in connivance with the UN. How fair is this to Sri Lanka?
Hamas was founded in 1987 an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. US & EU designate it as a terrorist organization. Its 1988 charter called for the murder of Jews & destruction of Israel both calls were changed in 2017. Hamas first suicide bombing was on April 1993. It has a political wing & a military wing & won elections in 2006.
All Palestinians do not support Hamas just as all Tamils do not support LTTE. Yet Hamas & LTTE claim to be representing their people.
On 7 October 2023 Hamas is alleged to have attacked military bases & towns in southern Israel as a result of which 1200 people were killed, 845 were civilians & took some 240 Israeli & nationals of other countries as hostage. UN claimed reasonable grounds to believe’ some Hamas members committed sexual violence against hostages on 7 October.
On 26 July 2006, LTTE terrorists blocked the sluice gates, committing a genocide by denying water to some 40,000 farmers & thereafter began attacking villages.
Following the 7 October 2003 attack by Hamas, Israel launched a counter attack on Gaza (a strip of land only 140sq.miles) & home to 2.3million people.
Regarding denying water as a war crime, the Sri Lankan Government ordered its troops to re-open the sluice gates & when doing so faced onslaught of LTTE resulting in troops returning fire.
The case of Israel-Palestine & Sri Lanka-Tamils is somewhat different, however the comparison is being made to show the double-standards & hypocrisies within the halls of the UN that delivers lavish speeches preaching fair-play & equity to all UN Member States.
Since Israel’s bombing on Gaza UNOCHA has been releasing reports on Gazans killed, injured & missing. WHO declared that in the 1st month at least 160 Gazan children died. Of the 2.3million Gazans 1.7million, that it 85% are IDPs. Israeli siege has resulted in electricity blackouts, blockade of fuel, food, water & medicines. UN has called it a crisis of humanity”.
We are all preached about the 1949 Geneva Conventions on international humanitarian law (not human rights) as well as universal rules on warfare that prohibit punitive sieges, collective punishment, hostage-taking, torture, cruel & inhuman treatment, targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement of civilian populations. ICC defines this as an act of genocide. All parties including terrorists have to abide by the laws though they are not recognized as lawful combatants”. All parties must avoid disproportionate harm. This means that in a hostile situation there is likely to be harm but it cannot be in excess.
If Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel is said to have caused greater harm to civilians than military as well as taking hostages – why were these same standards not applied to Sri Lanka when LTTE closed the sluice gates denying water to 40,000 civilians and thereafter took some 300,000 hostages to be kept as human shields and even killed those that attempted to flee LTTE?
Israel’s bombardment on Gaza schools that housed civilians causing thousands of casualties as well as destruction to homes & flats in Gaza which has killed only a small number of Hamas but a larger number of civilians is claimed as disproportionate” but UNSG has not appointed a panel like the 3 member Darusman Palen appointed for Sri Lanka & US-UK& EU has not spearheaded any resolutions or UN investigations against Israel like they did & do against Sri Lanka, while there are no Sir John Holmes to visit Gaza & claim the UN has failed” as he did to Sri Lanka.
If the UN & international community are powerless in Gaza – from where did they get all their teeth against Sri Lanka? Is it because Sri Lanka is a small powerless nation unlike Israel?
The hypocrisy in handling Israel & Sri Lanka undoubtedly illustrates the administrative, structural & policy failures of the UN, in the UN & by the UN. UN’s attempt at reforms produced UNHRC which has turned to be more biased than all. If R2P was promoted for Sri Lanka, why is it not being applied to Israel-Gaza?
Why is the US inactive against Israel but active against Sri Lanka? All of the successive resolutions against Sri Lanka were drafted & canvassed inside the UN by US. How come the same allegations used against Sri Lanka by US & Allies do not apply to Israel. Ironically, the Allies that stand against Sri Lanka, stand with Israel. Hysterical is that the statements on the allegations issued by US & Allies against Sri Lanka are the direct opposite when used to side with Israel. Something is definitely amiss!
In fact US & Allies that demanded a ceasefire in Sri Lanka going so far as to even despatch the foreign ministers of UK & France to Sri Lanka in 2009, have voted to prevent a ceasefire. On October 27, 2023 when UNSG invoked a rarely-used Article 99 calling for a ceasefire alongside 120 UN member states, US vetoed it. The US has used its veto powers 30 times to protect Israel. US has also protected Israel from ICC prosecution even sanctioning ICC staff!
The US that went to town about denial of humanitarian aid in Sri Lanka abstained from voting on 22 December when UNSC approved a resolution calling for more humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The UNSC did not get involved in Sri Lanka but we know how sheepishly the UNSG’s private 3 member panel ended up leaking their report instead of tabling it at the UNGA or UNSC & that has been the basis of the resolutions & UN investigations against Sri Lanka which we continue to question the legality.
The Genocide Convention is an equal farce – with parties and groups lavishly using the term genocide” without any foundational basis except technology-used social media PR stunts & campaigns to do Goebbels propaganda on genocide without any facts or evidence. When such gets accepted by the UN apparatus itself, their hypocrisy is further highlighted. The fundamental question of where are the dead bodies, the skeletons, the names of the alleged dead never make it to any reports. But what gets media mileage is heavily funded trained documentaries that hire people to cry & read out well-rehearsed stories of genocide” and these are given witness protection” while their stories are gagged as confidential” and purposely not released for 20-40 years enabling the truth to be sealed from public domain.
Why is UNSG not commissioning a 3member panel on Israel’s siege like he did to Sri Lanka – if legality of this appointment is what is preventing such an appointment against Sri Lanka, why is the legality of the Resolutions & OISL against Sri Lanka not investigated?
If UN calls for action against Hamas, why did it not do so when LTTE committed acts of suicide, assassinations, bombings across 30 years in Sri Lanka?
If Israel is being accused of denying food, fuel medicines etc what has the UN done – when Sri Lanka was falsely accused of same, what did UN do?
When UN & UNHRC failed Sri Lanka while LTTE bombed across 30 years, why did the UN/UNHRC suddenly go into action after the fall of the LTTE popping out all the law books against Sri Lanka but doing sweet nothing as LTTE amassed funds & procured arms globally, ran campaigns from western capitals and unleashed brutal crimes across 30 years? What did UN/UNHRC do to stop LTTE recruiting children into child soldiers inspite of appointing a Sri Lankan as a rapporteur? What did UN do to stop LTTE from training children to even commit suicide biting the cyanide capsule? How many children would have died because UN did nothing.
Then months after LTTE ground force was militarily defeated along with the LTTE leader, from nowhere came allegations of dead” manipulating the legally questionable Darusman panel’s report statement may have been killed”. Yet, there were no dead bodies, no mass graves and certainly no skeletons or even names of supposed 40,000 or more dead. More importantly, those who claim to have footage of people being killed cannot show any mass graves that were dug during hostilities to stuff 40,000 dead bodies. The UNSG toured the areas that the conflict took place by helicopter with media. They should have been able to see newly dug graves but none existed. David Gray of Reuters even toured the battlefield in April 2009 & reported Sri Lankan soldiers sharing their own food rations with civilians. However, fast forward to Gaza there are actual footage of people in Gaza who have died being dumped into makeshift graves & this is what should alarm UNHRC into action. The question is why are they not making the same noise as they did to Sri Lanka? Just count the statements issued by successive UNHRC heads since 2006 to come to terms with the bias inside the UN by its officials. With so much of lies a bogus Truth & Reconciliation is also being forced down on Sri Lanka as part of aid package by western governments. There are even calls for Tribunals without even being able to present any dead bodies or skeletons. We know the outcome of the Yugoslavia tribunal which took 23 years spending $2billion & omitted NATO crimes from investigations, eventually the Serbian leader was exonerated after he died mysteriously in prison – the allegations of 40,000 dead in Serbia that was used to call for a Tribunal ended up with only 2788 dead & that buried the mass genocide” drama. So most of us right thinking people in Sri Lanka know where all these biased calls are going & we can well sense the objective which has nothing to do with justice or truth.
Other than issuing lavish speeches against Israel/Hamas– is UN/UNHRC following the same procedures applied against Sri Lanka, ironically US & Allies are supporting Israel while they were on a witch hunt against Sri Lanka.
Dear Sinha, The 57th session of the Human Rights Council is to be held from 9 September 2024 to 9 October 2024. Under the provisions of resolution 51/1 which was passed against Sri Lanka in October 2022, the UN Human Rights Commissioner is due to present a written update on the situation of human rights in Sri Lanka and a comprehensive report ‘that includes further options for advancing accountability’ and both are to be discussed in an interactive dialogue at the 57th session of the UNHRC. The 57th session will coincide with the Presidential election which under the provisions of Article 31(3) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, has to be held between the 17th September and 17th October 2024. Hence we are faced with a situation where the President and the government in power in Sri Lanka when the 57th session of the UNHRC begins, may no longer be in power by the time the session end Since Sri Lanka should not be facing a process in the UNHRC in the midst of a crucial election, the correct thing for the government to do would be to arrange for a postponement in taking up Sri Lanka in the UNHRC as was done in 2015 after the yahapalana government came into power. In that instance, the Sri Lankan issue was put off from the March session in 2015 to the September/October session the same year. The government should perhaps make arrangements to have this matter taken up at the organizational meeting which will be held before the 57th session of the UNHRC later this year. After the presidential and parliamentary polls which are likely to be held in quick succession later this year and early next year, the next big issue for Sri Lanka will be the process in the UNHRC. In 2021 and 2022, I made note of certain reports and opinions expressed by your political editor on matters relating to the UN Human Rights Council which I wish to bring to your attention because the English language print media in particular has a special responsibility to be accurate in reporting and to refrain from confusing or misleading the public. The issues I highlight will be of relevance to upcoming the 57th session of the UNHRC as well. The 12 June 2022 column written by the Sunday Times political editor had the following paragraph: In February 2020 Sri Lanka withdrew from the co-sponsorship of US-backed resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka Resolution 40/1. In March, the same year, the Council adopted a resolution successfully with wording that Sri Lanka could not control or negotiate on the matter. Since then, approaches to UNHRC sessions have been ad hoc and have led to a litany of blunders. A retired foreign service career officer said the attempt to withdraw from the resolution was a ‘grave mistake.’ That saw the birth of resolution (41/6) which, he claimed was intrusive, damaging to the country and even the military.” This included provisions for countries to use universal jurisdiction to deal with human rights violators. Otherwise, he argued, there was still room to negotiate on the words in Resolution 40/6.” Before going on to weightier matters, I should point out that that there are some errors in the numeronyms of the resolutions and the dates mentioned in this paragraph. As your political editor states, Sri Lanka did indeed withdraw from co-sponsorship of resolution 40/1 in February 2020 during the tenure of Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardene. (The substantive resolution that Sri Lanka withdrew from was actually resolution 30/1 of 2015. Resolutions 34/1 of 2017 and 40/1 of 2019 were only resolutions brought to extend resolution 30/1.) To say that Sri Lanka withdrew from resolution 40/1 in February 2020 and that the UNHRC adopted another resolution in March ‘the same year’ is not accurate. The next resolution against Sri Lanka (resolution 46/1) was adopted only in March 2021 after resolution 40/1 of 2019 had run its course. In the final sentences of the paragraph from the 12 June 2022 article quoted above, your political editor refers to a resolution 41/6 when he should have been referring to resolution 46/1. The former is a resolution on eliminating discrimination against women and girls passed in July 2019 and the latter is the resolution passed against Sri Lanka in March 2021. At the end of the paragraph he refers to a resolution 40/6 which is a resolution on cultural diversity passed in March 2019 whereas what he may have been referring to was resolution 40/1. (If one speaks of negotiating the wording of the resolution, what matters is the substantive resolution 30/1 and not resolutions 34/1 and 40/1 which only extended the application of resolution 30/1.) This is not ‘trivia’ pertaining to Geneva. One has to be very familiar with what is what before writing about these matters, because you could easily end up confusing the public who rely on the print media to obtain information and to form their own opinions. Due to his own obvious lack of familiarity with the subject, your political editor has ended up misinforming the public on much more substantive matters. In the paragraph quoted above, he opines that Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from resolution 30/1 led to the adoption of another resolution the wording of which Sri Lanka could not control or negotiate on. On what grounds can anyone assume that Sri Lanka could ‘control’ or ‘negotiate’ on the wording of resolution 30/1 of 2015? The yahapalana government co-sponsored resolution 30/1 in 2015 and it was extended in 2017 and 2019 but during that entire period there were no negotiations on the wording of resolution 30/1. If there was even a remote possibility of negotiating on the wording of resolution 30/1, the yahapalana government would have done that behind the scenes and those changes would have been incorporated in resolution 34/1 or resolution 40/1 which were passed in 2017 and 2019 respectively. The yahapalana government was taking a beating domestically on account of having co-sponsored resolution 30/1 and they had every incentive to re-negotiate its wording if that was possible. When the last yahapalana foreign minister Tilak Marapana addressed the UNHRC in Geneva in March 2019, he highlighted among many other things, why it is legally impossible to establish special courts to try war crimes with the participation of foreign judges and prosecutors etc. – a provision that was central to resolution 30/1. The reason why the last yahapalana foreign minister had to go to Geneva and speak at cross-purposes with resolution 30/1 which his own government had co-sponsored a few years earlier, was because no such room for negotiation existed. Once a resolution is passed with the co-sponsorship of the country concerned, that places a logical block on further negotiation. The wording in resolutions have to be negotiated on before it is passed, not afterwards. The tenor of Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana’s speech of March 2019 differs very little in substance from those made by his successors up to now. Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardene’s withdrawal from resolution 30/1 in February 2020 was a natural follow up to the speech made by his predecessor Minister Marapana in March 2019. According to the paragraph quoted above, an unnamed ‘retired foreign service career officer’ is supposed to have told your political editor that withdrawing from resolution 30/1 was a ‘grave mistake’ and that such withdrawal led to the birth of resolution (46/1) which was ‘intrusive, damaging to the country and even the military’ and that resolution 46/1 included provisions for countries to use universal jurisdiction to deal with human rights violators. Your political editor has been able to write such nonsense and get away with it because only a very few people in Sri Lanka are really familiar with what is going on in the UNHRC. Fewer still have actually read the resolutions and related documents. Undoubtedly, resolution 46/1 which was passed in March 2021 replacing resolution 30/1, was intrusive, damaging to the country and the military which is why Sri Lanka refused to accept it. However resolution 30/1 was far more intrusive, and far more damaging to the country and the military than resolution 46/1. I cannot go into the demerits of resolution 30/1 here because that would require another article of this length. However for the time being, suffice it to say that it was not resolution 46/1 that introduced provisions for countries to use universal jurisdiction to deal with alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka as your political editor misleadingly states in the paragraph quoted above. That universal jurisdiction be used against alleged violators of human rights in Sri Lanka was one of the recommendations in the report of the UN Human Rights High Commissioner (the OISL Report) of 26 September 2015. The yahapalana government accepted the OISL report when they co-sponsored resolution 30/1 through operative paragraph 1 of that resolution. Thus you will see that your political editor has been conveying misinformation to the public. I also wish to draw your attention to the political column in the Sunday Times on 7 March 2021 under the banner headline UNHRC sessions: Govt.’s diplomatic blunders galore without proper strategy”. It also had a subheading stating Ambassador Chandraprema involved in procedural errors; thrice overruled by core-group envoys”. The passages in that article regarding the procedural errors I am supposed to have made were as follows: …Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations in Geneva. Not quite well versed in the intricacies of diplomatic conduct, including in seeking the negotiations of the current text, he did cause some procedural errors… When general observations and comments ended, with remarks for and against Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Robert Last, declared that the session now reviews line by line the draft resolution. Envoy Chandraprema intervened and declared that the operative paragraphs (OP) 6 and 7 should be first taken up. Deputy Ambassador Last turned down the request pointing out that it is customary to review line by line in order of the paragraphs. Of course, China’s delegate to the UN in Geneva stood up for Ambassador Chandraprema. He said the operative paragraphs 6 and 7 be considered by the chair first. Also joining in was the Pakistani delegate, who suggested that they move to Operative Paragraphs 6 and 7. It was of no avail. At this stage of the informal discussion, Deputy Ambassador Last gave the chair to Rita French, the Human Rights Counsellor of the UK Permanent Mission in Geneva. She resumed the line-by-line discussion when Ambassador Chandraprema insisted once more in first dealing with OP 6 and 7. She said they would discuss the two paragraphs when it came to that part of the resolution. The Sri Lankan envoy’s pleas were rejected, twice by the Deputy Ambassador and once by the Human Rights Counsellor for the UK mission. Does this not reflect badly on Sri Lanka, a country which in the past has not been short of diplomatic skills? Once again, your political editor has got basic facts mixed up. In the passages above, he refers to Rita French as the Human Rights Counsellor of the UK Permanent Mission in Geneva and to Robert Last as the United Kingdom’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva. Rita French was actually the UK’s Global Human Rights Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative in Geneva and Robert Last was the Human Rights Counsellor of the UK Permanent Mission in Geneva. Be that as it may, according to what your political editor wrote on 7 March 2021 the ‘procedural error’ that the SL Ambassador is supposed to have made is in requesting that operative paragraphs 6 and 7 be considered first when the draft resolution against Sri Lanka was taken up for discussion at the informal meetings. Resolutions are put up for discussion by its penholders at informal meetings. These are as the name indicates, ‘informal meetings’ and not official sessions of the UNHRC. There is no ‘procedural error’ if the country concerned requests that certain paragraphs be taken up first. If I had made a ‘procedural error’ as your political editor alleges, that request would not have been fully supported by some of the most important players in the UNHRC as your columnist himself has indicated in the passages quoted above. Your political editor further states the following in his article of 7 March 2021: In a statement to the Interactive Dialogue on UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michele Bachelet’s Report on Sri Lanka, Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena declared on February 24 (2020) that Sri Lanka rejects” her report. He said it had unjustifiably broadened its scope and mandate further, incorporating many issues of governance and matters that are essentially domestic for any self-respecting, sovereign country.” He called on the UN Human Rights Council to reject the new resolution which is based on this Report,” and the issue be brought to a close. A rather strange participant at the informal dialogue on Monday over its contents was C.A. Chandraprema, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations in Geneva… …the important question that begs answer is why Ambassador Chandraprema had to participate, that too at such high level. The event was not for envoys but at a lower level. Was it a change of mind by the Government or did he believe his intervention would make a difference? If that be the case, why did the Government tell the Sri Lankan people that both the Report and the Resolution had been rejected? …If the intention was to pressure the Human Rights Council to back out from some provisions in the Resolution, why then should it have been rejected?..” The Gotabaya Rajapaksa government rejected and withdrew from only from UNHRC resolution 30/1. They did not disengage completely from the processes in the UN Human Rights Council as that would have left the field open for detractors to say whatever they like and do whatever they like without the wider community of nations having the benefit of hearing Sri Lanka’s side of the story – which would be highly inimical to a small nation like Sri Lanka. As far as draft resolution 46/1 of March 2021 was concerned, the government policy was to remain engaged and negotiate until all avenues for negotiation were exhausted. Hence I, as the then Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, participated personally at all the informals on draft resolution 46/1 held on the 1st , 2nd, 8th and 10th March 2021. In the passages quoted above, your political editor has expressed the opinion that Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the UN should not have been present at the informals and that Sri Lanka should have been represented by a junior diplomat. Countries that are at the receiving end in the UNHRC react differently to the informals on resolutions brought against them. Some countries ignore the informals totally basically telling the penholders to do as they please and even telling friendly countries not to attend the informals or speak on their behalf. Other countries send junior diplomats to the informals and take a lukewarm attitude to the proceedings choosing to contest the resolution only during the vote. Some countries remain fully engaged, in the informals as Sri Lanka was in 2021 and 2022. Everything depends on the decision made by the respective government. When Sri Lanka is faced with an issue of the magnitude of a UNHRC resolution, the negotiations in that regard should be carried out by the Ambassador himself instead of by a junior diplomat. Even though your political editor has criticized the Sri Lankan Ambassador’s participation at the informals on resolution 46/1 in March 2021, that engagement was received very well by many countries during the informals and also during ‘the explanation of the vote after the vote’ at the end of the 46th session of the UNHRC. Some of the comments made about Sri Lanka’s participation and engagement on the 1st March 2021 at the first informal were as follows (taken verbatim from the recording): Uruguay – We welcome the presence of the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka in this informal consultation which is in itself is a very good sign and I look forward to hearing the comments of the country concerned”. Ireland – It is very positive to see the Ambassador of Sri Lanka participating in today’s informal negotiations. We are looking forward to hearing from the country concerned and engaging in constructive dialogue”. Finland – I would like to thank the Sri Lankan permanent representative for being with us today and engaging in the dialogue”. New Zealand – We also welcome the participation of the permanent representative of Sri Lanka as the country concerned and Sri Lanka’s engagement with the core group”. Brazil – We congratulate the Sri Lankan Ambassador for being here and conveying the points of view of the govt. which we have been taking note of”. Indonesia – I very much appreciate the presence of the ambassador of Sri Lanka and his thoughts”. Mexico – We welcome the participation of the mission of Sri Lanka at this meeting. It is much better to have their presence here and their own perspective than being absent and us not being able to hear from them, so I really appreciate that and it’s going to enrich our discussion”. Sweden – We appreciate the participation of Sri Lanka in today’s informal and urge Sri Lanka to consider a consensual approach”. International Commission of Jurists – I recognize the presence of the mission of Sri Lanka and their engagement in this dialogue”. Over three weeks after the first informal meeting, on the final day of the 46th Session after resolution 46/1 on Sri Lanka was voted on, many countries mentioned Sri Lanka’s participation at the informals in a positive light even in the written explanation of their vote as follows: United Kingdom – We regret that agreement could not be reached with Sri Lanka during the four informal meetings but we thank the distinguished Ambassador of Sri Lanka for his participation”. Philippines – We note that Sri Lanka engaged in the informals in good faith even after the failure of the OHCHR to adhere to high standards of transparency, objectivity and fairness in reporting”. Pakistan – We appreciate Sri Lanka’s constructive engagement throughout the informal consultations”. Brazil – We commend the participation of the Sri Lankan Ambassador during the informal consultations as proof of goodwill which certainly contributed to a more open and balanced approach during the discussions”. Indonesia – We appreciate the continued and active engagement of the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka during the informal negotiations. Such engagement shows the willingness and the determination of the government of Sri Lanka to provide comments explanations and amendments to the draft as well as advancing dialogue with the core group. Indonesia values such engagement”. These comments indicate that the government’s decision to remain fully engaged in the process met its diplomatic objective. This active engagement with the wider community of nations was why only 20 of the 47 member states of the UNHRC voted in favour of the current resolution against Sri Lanka (resolution 51/1) which was passed in October 2022. This engagement was also the reason why 38 speakers representing 43 nations spoke in support of Sri Lanka at the interactive dialogue on Sri Lanka held during the 51st session in September 2022. (Saudi Arabia spoke on behalf of all six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council.) Your political editor has queried in the paragraph above …If the intention was to pressure the Human Rights Council to back out from some provisions in the Resolution, why then should it have been rejected?..” Firstly, it is not the UN Human Rights Council itself that brings resolutions against countries but groups of penholders. It is the penholders who can include or drop provisions from draft resolutions. Most importantly, if the country concerned is not in agreement with the draft resolution, it has to indicate that disagreement at the informals and contest the resolution when it is taken up for voting in the Council. The country concerned cannot accept a resolution and subsequently seek to amend its wording after it is passed as your political editor seems to suggest. I bring these matters to your attention well in advance of the 57th session of the UNHRC so that you can instruct your political editor to refrain from confusing or misleading the public with garbled facts and ill-informed opinions. Screenshots of the two articles by your political editor referred to in this letter are attached hereto. Yours sincerely, C.A.Chandraprema
President Maithripala Sirisena says he decided to establish the National Economic Council to strengthen the national economy by formalizing the economic management in the country.
He said that the objectives of NEC are to increase the export income and develop the local industry.
He pointed out there is a need for a stronger program for the development of agriculture. ( like Dudley??or for Dudley ?)
The National Economic Council aims at fulfilling the government’s responsibility for the development of industries”, he said.
He stated that the National Economic Council was established after discussions with the representatives of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, local and international economic specialists, and also Sri Lankan specialists, working abroad.
President Sirisena emphasized that the government will not sign any free trade agreement which will bring injustice or challenge to the local industries and entrepreneurs. ( ETCA ?)
He said some groups that are not related to the business sector are making the business community scared by giving them false information.
The government is getting into the free trade agreements with foreign countries only by protecting local industries,” he said (humbug!)
.The President pointed out that the state patronage for the development of local industries was not sufficiently done in the past. He said the government will implement a new program within the next few months to encourage and guide small and medium-scale entrepreneurs.
Government is only talking about agriculture and livestock etc..It seems that the concept of BLUE ECONOMY based on harnessing vast resources in the ocean surrounding our country is neglected.
As an example emerging concept of the Blue Economy has been embraced by the Government of Seychelles as a mechanism to realise sustainable economic development based ,around an ocean-based economy.
Seychelles’ intention is to implement the Blue Economy concept at the national level as a framework to foster an integrated approach to sustainable development programs. The critical gap, however, is the mechanism for its implementation at the national level. Limited, if any, practical information is currently available to countries, notably small states, wishing to implement these concepts.
This is predominately so, as information that does exist focuses primarily on land-based economic development or has a strong focus on conservation rather than on the sustainable use of the investment in an ocean-based economy for national benefit.
( Rice ,Live stock only ??? )
This roadmap will necessarily require the definition of short, medium and long-term actions across a broad range of sectors and will also require fundamental changes to the traditional institutional arrangements that exist to support the management of marine sectors and resources in Sri Lanka
A coordinated, whole of Government approach will be a necessary condition for successful implementation of the Blue Economy.
Recent changes in the attitude of Sri Lankan Government should establish a dedicated agency to oversee completion and implementation for the Blue Economy Roadmap.
However, while Sri Lanka has existing capacity for some key sectors of the Blue Economy (e.g. fisheries) it lacks the overarching policy and strategic expertise required to make this transition effectively.
As such, the Government of Sri Lanka should seek the assistance of the Commonwealth Secretariat and the World Bank with the provision of a long-term in-country technical expert to assist the Government complete this transition effectively.In addition, up to two additional technical experts may be required on a short-term basis (6 months) to undertake specific technical activities that are expected to arise as the project progresses.
Goal
The project aims to assist the Government of Sri Lanka in developing and implementing a National Blue Economy Roadmap, the purpose being to establish the broad direction for future investment in and development of a sustainable ocean-based economy in our country.
The purpose of the specific request for long-term (and shorter-term) technical adviser(s), is to assist the Government of Sri Lanka to review, validate and implement the Roadmap and more importantly, to support Sri Lanka in its transition to a more integrated ocean-based economy.
Question is whether newly appointed Technocrats have any idea about the Blue Economy ?
As an example a recent visit by Japanese Delegation initiated by the Prime Ministry’s office consisting private companies have expressed willingness, to develop Fishery Industry.
Unfortunately some advisors in the PM’s office are only promoting implementation of Ice making Plants on Land to conserve fish caught in the deep ocean.
What our so called experts have failed to understand is that 70% of the fish brought on shore is rotten because Sri Lanka has not developed a Mother Vessel Concept to collect fish as soon as they are caught ,preserve them until they reach the shore .
Fishermen using Multiday fishing Vessels go to Ocean carrying few tons of Ice blocks to preserve fish .By the time they return after an almost three weeks, ice is melted and fish is not even good for making Dry Fish!
Almost all big fish you find in the market is not good for Human Consumption
When this delegation was taken to Dikovita Harbour (a grandiose western style harbour facility built with foreign funding) during wee hours of the day by my team, they were aghast and disgusted to note that the fish unloaded in the morning by fishermen is not suitable for Human Consumption!
One polite young Japanese Lady murmured to us and asked Is this fish for dogs or for making chicken feed?”
I took the liberty of calling PMs’ office and explained that installation of Hybrid Ice Making plants of Japanese Technology on land is not what we need.
We need MOTHER VESSELS to be anchored in the Ocean with Seawater Ice making Plants to collect them rather than waiting for three weeks
Mother vessels are Stationery Self sustained ISLANDS in the ocean which can not only provide Ice, but Fuel and .Emergency Assistance to multy-day fishing vessels of 40 to 55 feet which hardly have Ice Making Plants on Board ( They do not even have generators on board but use batteries for night lights !)
Impact
The successful and sustainable implementation of the Blue Economy Strategic Roadmap will ultimately deliver the following outcomes:
Ocean ecosystems and biodiversity recovered and protected.
Increased investment in existing ocean-based economic sectors.
New data and knowledge on Sri Lankan ocean space available.
Marine-based aquaculture sector and marine biotechnology products and processes developed and implemented.
Protective measures and greater use of surveillance and enforcement tools provides greater protection for Seychelles.
Fisheries and aquaculture management improved through equitable, non-subsidized and sustainable practices.
Utilization of renewable energy from the ocean, ( i,e Harnessing Wave energy )
Surveillance of offshore waters strengthened through enhanced maritime domain awareness and law enforcement. The above is expected to contribute to the goals of the Government of Sri Lanka
Capacity built and new research/data sectors developed.
Streamlined implementation with an overarching system in place.
The main beneficiaries of the project will be the Ministry of Finance, Trade and The Blue Economy. In addition, a range of government agencies/ministries that have responsibility for the management of marine resources and sectors, including Marine resources, tourism, environment management, maritime transport, economic development and investment, maritime security and offshore petroleum will also benefit. In this context Ministry of Tourism may be amalgamated with Ministry in Charge of Fishery and Aquatic Resources?
A broad range of relevant stakeholders and citizens will ultimately benefit from this intervention, including existing marine industry sectors, marine user groups and local communities.
Outputs
Implementation of accelerated blue economy program (like Mahaweli for Farmers)
Comprehensive and strategic advice provided to the Minister of Finance, Trade and the Blue Economy, Ministry Secretary and relevant stakeholders including private Sector responsible for the Blue Economy.
Relevant documentation e.g. policy papers, project management documents, project status and evaluation documents prepared and submitted.
Review of the current Roadmap ( if any) including additional improvement/amendments in the content leading to the validation of the Road Map.
Stakeholder engagement and consultation facilitated as required, including the establishment of stakeholder bodies.
Strategies, focus areas and projects for implementation of the Blue Economy Roadmap identified, approved and implemented.
Resources (financial, human capacity and technical) necessary to execute projects for implementation of the Blue Economy Roadmap, identify, solicited and secured.
Strategic partnerships between Sri Lanka and our neighbours such as Maldives and Seychelles and relevant partners including, but not limited to: development agencies, private sector organizations, and marine research institutes, established and maintained.
Consistent implementation of the Roadmap across government and its respective agencies, in particular, working closely with Sri Lankan Ministry of Fisheries , Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy Ministry , , Ministry of Investment, Entrepreneurship Development and National Agency for Aquatic Resources etc.
Blue Economy roadmap and policy for Sri |Lanka should be promoted domestically, regionally and internationally.
While the collective west is in the grips of an existential legitimacy crisis, the RIC is devising its own security order to protect the rest of the world from the ‘genocidals.’
The Hegemon has no idea what awaits the Exceptionalist mindset: China has started to decisively stir the civilizational cauldron without bothering about an inevitable array of sanctions coming by early 2025 and/or a possible collapse of the international financial system.
Last week, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his list of delusional US demands was welcomed in Beijing by Foreign Minister Wang Yi and President Xi Jinping as little more than an annoying gnat. Wang, on the record, stressed that Tehran was justified in defending itself against Israel’s shredding of the Vienna Convention when it attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus.
At the UN Security Council, China now openly questions not only the state terror attack on the Nord Streams but also the US–Israel combo’s blocking of Palestinian statehood. Moreover, Beijing, just like Moscow recently, hosts Palestine’s political factions together in a conference aiming to unify their positions.
Next Tuesday, only two days before Moscow celebrates Victory Day, the end of the Great Patriotic War, Xi will land in Belgrade to remind the whole world about the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the Chinese embassy by the US, UK, and NATO.
Russia, meanwhile, provided a platform for the UNRWA – the UN relief agency for Palestinian refugees, which Israel has sought to defund – to explain to high representatives of BRICS-10 the cataclysmic humanitarian situation in Gaza, as described by UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini.
In short, serious political business is already being conducted outside of the corrupted UN system, as the United Nations disintegrates into a corporate shell with the US dictating all terms as the largest shareholder.
Yet another key example of BRICS as the new UN: Russian Security Council chairman Nikolai Patrushev met in St. Petersburg with his Chinese counterpart Chen Wenqing on the sidelines of the 12th International Security Summit, congregating over 100 nations, including the security heads of BRICS-10 members Iran, India, Brazil, and South Africa, as well as Iraq.
The SCO security show
But the key crossroads these past few days was the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) defense summit in Astana,
azakhstan. For the first time, the new Chinese Defense Minister, Dong Jun, met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Shoigu, to emphasize their comprehensive strategic partnership.
Dong, significantly, stressed the dynamic” nature of China–Russia military interaction, while Shoigu doubled down, saying it sets a model for interstate relations” based on mutual respect and shared strategic interests.
Addressing the full SCO assembly, Shoigu emphatically refuted the massive western propaganda drive about a Russian threat” to NATO.
Everybody was at the SCO defense ministers’ meeting – including, at the same table, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Belarus as an observer. Minsk is eager to join the SCO.
The interlocking Russia–Iran–China strategic partnerships were totally in sync. Apart from Dong meeting Shoigu, he also met Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, who lavishly praised Beijing’s condemnation of the Israeli terror air strike in Damascus.
What is happening now between Beijing and Tehran is a replay of what started last year between Moscow and Tehran, when a member of the Iranian delegation on a visit to Russia remarked that both parties had agreed on a mutual, high-level anything you need” relationship.
In Astana, Dong’s support for Iran was unmistakable. Not only did he invite Ashtiani to a security conference in Beijing, mirroring the Iranian position, he also called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Shoigu, meeting with Ashtiani, provided extra context when he recalled that the joint fight against international terrorism in Syria is a vivid example of our long-standing friendly relations.” The Russian defense minister then delivered his clincher:
The current military-political situation and threats to our states oblige us … to common approaches to building a just world order based on equality for all participants in the international community.
A new global security order
Establishing a new global security order is right at the heart of BRICS-10 planning – on par with the de-dollarization debate. All of this is anathema to the collective west, which is incapable of understanding the multifaceted, intertwined Russia, Iran, and China partnerships.
And the interaction goes on in person. Russian President Vladimir Putin will be visiting Beijing later this month. On Gaza, the Russia–Iran–China position is in complete sync: Israel is committing genocide. For the EU – and NATOstan as a whole – this is not genocide: the bloc supports Israel no matter what.
After Iran, on 13 April, changed the game in West Asia for good, without even using their finest hypersonic missiles, the key question for the Global Majority is stark: in the end, who will restrain the genocidals, and how? Diplomatic sources hint this will be discussed face-to-face by Putin and Xi.
As one Chinese scholar, with unique aplomb, remarks:
This time, the barbarians are facing a 5,000-year continuing written civilization, armed with Sun Tzu’s Art of War, Mao thought, Xi’s dual circulation strategy, Belt and Road, BRICS, renminbi digitalization, Russia and China unlimited, the world’s most powerful manufacturing industry, tech supremacy, economic powerhouse, and the backing of the Global South.
All that against a polarized Hegemon in turmoil, with its genocidal aircraft carrier in West Asia totally spinning out of control.
US threats of a clear choice” between ending several key strands of the Russia–China strategic partnership or facing a sanctions tsunami don’t cut it in Beijing. The same applies to Washington’s wishful attempts at preventing BRICS members from ditching the US dollar.
this is definitely a non-agreement capable” Empire, as Lavrov has been emphasizing since late 2021.
Yaroslav Lisovolik, founder of BRICS+ Analytics, dismisses the Hegemon’s threats against BRICS as the road map toward an alternative payment system is still in its infancy. As for Russia–China trade, the non-dollar high-speed train has already left the station.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has made it quite clear that Moscow and Beijing have nearly reached the point of abandoning the US dollar in bilateral trade. And the outright theft of Russian assets by the collective west is the ultimate red line for BRICS – and all other nations watching with horror – as a whole: this this is definitely a non-agreement capable” Empire, as Lavrov has been emphasizing since late 2021.
Yet the key question remains: how will Russia–Iran–China (RIC), as BRICS leaders, SCO members, and simultaneously top three existential threats” to the Hegemon, be able to start implementing a new global security architecture without staring down the genocidals.
Views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
The Ministry of Defence has announced the establishment of a special unit to gather information on the human trafficking of retired Sri Lankan military personnel to the Russia-Ukraine war through illegal channels.
Accordingly, the Defence Secretary requests the family members of the concerned to provide information about retired Sri Lankan military personnel who have joined the Russia-Ukraine war via various routes, including the dates of their departure, persons and institutions that had coordinated their passages, to the following dedicated no: 0112441146.
The Defence Secretary also requests the general public to provide information about individuals involved in human trafficking, those who support it and any relevant information related to the above phone number.
As this is done to safeguard the safety of Sri Lankan citizens, everyone is encouraged to pay special attention and provide information in this regard.
In a commendable display of swift action and strategic coordination, the Sri Lanka Coast Guard (SLCG) responded decisively to an oil spill incident reported late on the evening of May 5, 2024. The spill, originating from a fuel transferring bowser that had fallen into a waterway at the Laggala Divisional Secretariat. After receiving the news, immediate efforts taken by SLCG under the visionary leadership of the Director General of SLCG.
The Operations Directorate of SLCG quickly engaged with the Disaster Management Center to gather crucial details for effective planning and execution of the oil spill response and management operation. With meticulous arrangements in place, a team comprising three officers and ten Coast Guard personnel was deployed as the first responders early morning on May 6, 2024.
The incident, situated at the Laggala LC 1 tank and its connected canal within the Laggala DS division, posed a significant environmental threat, affecting not only the immediate area but also disrupting the water supply essential for daily use and agricultural activities of the villagers. Throughout the day, they were unable to access water and felt helpless. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the SLCG Rapid Response Team worked tirelessly and managed to clear the tank within a day, with support from the Divisional secretariat and staff, Grama Niladari and staff, Mahaveli project team, Laggala Police and the local villagers.
Approximately 3500 liters of fuel oil were spilled, necessitating urgent action to contain and mitigate its impact. Through hardworking efforts, the team successfully recovered approximately 2000 liters of contaminated fuel oil. This rapid and effective response underscores the Sri Lanka Coast Guard’s unwavering commitment to community welfare across social, economic and human security aspects.
By swiftly addressing the mitigation of environmental hazards while prioritizing the well-being of local communities, the Sri Lanka Coast Guard has once again demonstrated its capacity to safeguard both natural resources and human livelihoods in times of crisis. Such proactive measures not only mitigate immediate risks but also contribute to the long-term resilience and sustainability of ecosystems and communities.
While a declining voters’ turnout surfaced in various parts of India/Bharat during the last three phases of polling under general elections 2024, Assam as well as Northeast Bharat recorded an impressive voters’ response to elect 25 members to the 18th Lok Sabha. Assam voted peacefully in the third (and final) phase polling on 7 May for four Parliamentary constituencies (namely Guwahati, Barpeta, Dhubri and Kokrajhar) with over 80 percent polling, which is nearly 15% more than the other parts of Bharat in the last phase. Often termed as a land of separatists, where most of the residents are alleged to remain reluctant to participant in any national event, Northeast voters have shown their inherent commitment for the nation, while participating in the greatest electoral show on Earth with enthusiasm
Altogether, 93 Lok Sabha seats belonging to 11 States and union territories of India went to the polls in the last phase. The voters of Gujarat (25 seats), Karnataka (14 seats), Maharashtra (11 seats), Uttar Pradesh (10 seats), Madhya Pradesh (8 seats), Chhattisgarh (7 seats), Bihar (5 seats), West Bengal (4 seats), Goa (2 seats), Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu (2 seats), and Jammu & Kashmir (1 seat) have already given mandates to their representatives (out of 1,331 candidates) through the electronic voting machines for the lower house of Parliament. The counting of votes will take place on 4 June (after four more phases of polling scheduled for 13, 20, 25 May and 1 June) and the results are expected the same day.
According to the Election Commission of India (ECI), polling in the 3rd phase recorded 64.4% national voter turnout (updated at 11:40 pm on 7 May), where Assam recorded the highest response (81.61 %) followed by West Bengal (75.79%), Goa (75.20%), Chhattisgarh (71.06%), Karnataka (70.41%), Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu (69.87%), Madhya Pradesh (66.05%), Maharashtra (61.44%), Gujarat (58.98%), Bihar (58.18%) and Uttar Pradesh (57.34%). The 1st (19 April) and 2nd (26 April) phases covered 102 and 88 parliamentary constituencies respectively, where the ECI revealed the final voter turnout as 66.14 % and 66.71 % respectively. Compared to the national average, Assam recorded a better 78.25 and 77.35 polling percentages in the two phases.
Though the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) put candidates in all ten parliamentary seats of Assam in 1st and 2nd phases, it fielded only one party nominee in the last phase. The saffron party nominated a relatively unknown face (Bijuli Kalita Medhi) for the Guwahati constituency and extended support to its alliance candidates, namely Phani Bhusan Choudhury (Asom Gana Parishad) from Barpeta, Zabed Islam (AGP) from Dhubri, and Jayanta Basumtary (United People’s Party Liberal) for the Kokrajhar seat. Former BJP leader Mira Borthakur Goswami (now in the Indian National Congress) put an electoral challenge to the former Assam BJP women’s wing chief in Guwahati.
In Barpeta, the AGP legislator faces Deep Bayan (Congress), Manoranjan Talukdar (a CPM legislator), and others, whereas in Dhubri, the AGP nominee challenges sitting All India United Democratic Front MP Badruddin Ajmal and Congress legislator Rakibul Hussain in the westernmost constituency. As the nomination of sitting Kokrajhar MP Naba Kr Sarania was cancelled, the electoral fight in the Bodo-dominated constituency emerged as a triangular one, where the UPPL nominee faces challenges from Garjan Mashhary (Congress) and Kampa Borgoyary (Bodoland People’s Front).
Besides Assam, Tripura and Meghalaya in the region also recorded impressive polling, ranging from 75 to over 80 per cent in both phases. Even Nagaland, where six districts, namely Mon, Longleng, Tuensang, Kiphire, Noklak, and Shamator, voted zero, recorded around 57 per cent polling. The voters of Arunachal Pradesh successfully exercised their franchise to elect two MPs and 50 legislators, with a turnout of around 67 per cent. Mentionable is that 10 BJP candidates, including state chief minister Pema Khandu and his deputy Chowna Mein, had already won the race with no opposition candidates. Sikkim electorates also voted for 32 legislators along with one MP, with more than 75 per cent voters’ responses. State CM Prem Singh Tamang, former CM Pawan Kumar Chamling, legendary footballer Bhaichung Bhutia, etc. are contesting from separate assembly constituencies.
Amidst relentless troubles for a year because of ethnic conflicts between Meiteis and Kukis, the polling in Manipur witnessed violence. In fact, it was the only north-eastern state to witness electoral violence till now. Many booths in and around Imphal went for re-polling, and the state’s final voter turnout reached over 75 per cent. Contrary to Manipur, Mizoram witnessed peaceful polling but recorded only over 55 percent turnout. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance is looking for 400+ seats in the Lok Sabha under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But despite relentless awareness campaigns by the ECI, social organisations, media outlets, and political personalities, the voter turnout remains unsatisfactory in mainland India.
Colombo, May 9 (Daily Mirror) – The Election Commission formally announced that the 2024 Presidential election will be held on a day between September 17 and October 16.
Issuing a notice signed by its chairman R.M.A.L. Ratnayake, the Election Commission said it will call for nominations to hold the Presidential election within the specified timeframe in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of Sri Lanka and the Presidential Elections Act No. l5 of 1981, and that by virtue of the powers vested with the Election Commission to fix the date for the election, it will hold the Presidential election between 17 September 2024 and l6 October 2024.
Frederick Myers was a founder of the Society for Psychical Research. Within a few weeks of Myers’ death in 1901, he began to communicate through different direct writing mediums in England, the United States and India, sending information about what happens when we die. His scripts made no sense on their own but the mediums were told to forward them to a central location where they fitted together like a jigsaw. They were signed, “Myers.” More than three thousand scripts were transmitted over thirty years, some of them more than forty typed pages long. Read more about these “cross-correspondences” and Myers’ discoveries about the afterlife – plus read the full books, here online, written by Geraldine Cummins, one of Myers’ correspondents…
Personal development has, as one of its aims, to transcend the human condition. If consciousness is limited to one’s current lifetime, and if one’s only route to immortality is to reproduce one’s genes and to try to make one’s mark on the world for the benefit of future generations, then still these are worthwhile aims.
But if, instead, one’s consciousness survives death, then the motivation to transcend the human condition becomes far stronger. One’s personal development in this lifetime will affect one’s situation in the after-life, and it will determine one’s future – whether it be to reincarnate in this world (in a worse, similar or better condition than one is now) or to fulfill one’s potential by moving on to higher purposes and responsibilities.
Frederick Myers recognized this as a critical question for all intelligent people and worked relentlessly to provide us with a solid proof of life after death.
The Aragalaya came and went. The claim that we need a system change in Sri Lanka” has become the main legacy of that upheaval that brought Sri Lanka to the cusp of a violent takeover by organised left-wing or right-wing groups. The call for a system change” is nothing new. I remember how Mahinda Wijesekera, a JVP leader of the 1970s (who became a UNP minister) justified militant actions at the Vidyodaya campus (now SJP university) saying Raamuva Venaskireema ––”a change of frame”––was the main lesson of the campus. President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s non-confrontational approach may have fortunately averted bloodshed, but it delivered the country squarely into the hands of international Shylocks and their local financial and political agents.
President Ranil Wickremsinghe (RW) emerged as the perfect fit for the occasion, with immense administrative experience as a Prime Minister and minister many times over. RW’s libertarianism is in sync” with the mindset of bankers in Washington and the dealers in Davos. RW may not be accountable to a public who had rejected him and his party unequivocally in 2020. By the same token, he can only be a caretaker President. However, the main demand of the public was that ALL 225” parliamentarians must be sent home. The politicians, labeled as crooks, do not enjoy the trust of the public. Instead, RW has symbiotically protected even crooks to sustain his government, claiming the need for stability to implement the recommendations of the IMF”.
However, a less publicised agenda for creating free trade zones familiar from the early days of Yahapalanaya seems to also exist.
The IMF’s position is simple – it will provide emergency money to Sri Lanka so that Sri Lanka can pay back its loans amounting to some fifty billion US dollars. The IMF’s priority is to protect the Shylocks while the borrower is brought down to pay up. Debt write-off is never on the table; in any case the outstanding lenders are NOT governments, be it China, Japan, India or even the USA. There is no Chinese debt trap or any other conspiracy trap except in the minds of some political spin doctors.
IMF loan or not, Sri Lankans have to cut down imports, live frugally, produce more, get rid of loss-making enterprises, and increase forex inflows. Given that most of Sri Lanka’s earnings are in the hands of a mere 1% of the population, the draconian impact of the IMF loan must also fall on this rich 1% via a wealth tax. New taxes have been levied heavily on local products, while sparing and encouraging imports that cost forex! Even issuing visas to incoming tourists is now done by a foreign company getting paid in forex. Local operators would have been paid in rupees.
Meanwhile, the raising of the wages of estate workers by decree, with little concern for the health of the estate sector, shows that RW would readily discard his avowed free-market ideology for short-term votes.
Nevertheless, everything on the table shows that the government, the Central Bank, and their economic advisors are following text-book free-market theories within the simplest of globalisation concepts that work for big nations with strong export economies. The proposition that a free flow of goods, services and talent, as well as the adhesion to a larger market leads to greater overall prosperity does hold in the long run. The free-trade agreements covering the European Union, or the USA, Canada and Mexico, and the failure of Brexit have shown this to be true. However, this prosperity benefits the bigger partners most, while the smaller partners have to accept the erosion of their own industries and start-ups in competing with those of the bigger partner, at least for a generation or two. Furthermore, a smaller country tying up with a behemoth may have to accept the waste products of the big brother, polluting industries and agree to provide cheap raw materials to profit from the trickle-down prosperity promised for the future. Canada and Mexico have played that subservient role for years in their free trade” with the USA, and faced trade barriers in spite of agreed-upon free trade”.
When Sri Lanka ties up with India, as seems to be the undeclared plan of the Ranil–Basil consensus, we can certainly expect and profit from the opening up of a much larger market for Sri Lankan goods. But has Lanka competitively priced goods to sell? We may expect a more stable supply of electricity and fuel when grid connectivity and pipeline connectivity with India are established. But then, as Germany found out with the dawn of the Ukraine war, its dependence on Russian oil exposed its vulnerability and lost sovereignty. Many of India’s neighbours, such as Sikkim and Nepal, found that they had become mere Indian dependencies through power lines and pipelines.
The change of the system” to that of a Lanka-pradesh integrated even loosely with India, as well as the disbursement of business to Indian and international conglomerates will provide much bakshee” to the politicians at the helm, while sacrificing a generation of indigenous entrepreneurs. This already happened under the first stint of the open-market under JRJ, but the wholesale takeover of business by Indian business could not happen then. However, given an overt or covert full free-trade agreement, Indian business will be able to bid at least on an equal footing, and in fact more clout than a local businessman. When a job is advertised, Indians can apply equally, and perhaps even find more favour with Indian companies.
A recent report of the Madras Courier states that some 93,000 candidates applied for 62 peon” posts in Uttar Pradesh police department (https://madrascourier.com/policy/indias-unemployment-crisis/) ,which required a minimum eligibility of grade 5; however, there were 3,700 Ph.D holders and 28,000 post-graduates and many graduates. Once the system changes, in Lanka Pradesh every Sri Lankan job opening can in principle profit from a vast pool of Indian candidates, with Sri Lankan applicants elbowed out.
The crushing youth unemployment in India belies the so-called economic miracle of Narendra Modi. The top 1% of Indian society now owns most of India’s wealth. The extreme rise in inequality in India under Modi is seen in the attached graph; the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, while the middle class is getting eliminated. Indian Elites have spread this claim of a vibrant and rapidly growing India in all sorts of fora including at the Oxford Union debates, while the reality is seen in scholarly reports of Indian and international research. The seeming prosperity of Modi’s India at the moment is not unlike the facade of prosperity that Sri Lanka had, under the Rajapaksas just after the end of the Eelam war.
Local apparatchiks of the RW–Basil consensus will benefit handsomely from the largess of Indian business as the latter establishes itself in Sri Lanka. The high-flying Adani Group, associated with Narendra Modi, has already positioned itself in ‘Lanka Pradesh’. The methods they use were documented in Hindenburg Research.com, 23rd January 2023 under the title How the world’s third richest man is pulling the largestcon in corporate history. The Mannar wind turbine deal commits Sri Lanka to buying electricity from Adani at higher prices for many decades to come. How was this outrageous sellout to Adani signed? Was there an environmental impact assessment?
The Mannar wind farm is not only an economic sellout but also an environmental disaster, as detailed by the renowned biologist Rohan Pethiyagoda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5w2vMXgjI ). The importance of preserving bird migration patterns for insect control, cloud seeding, crop pollination, biodiversity etc., are unfortunately not at all appreciated by Sri Lanka’s ruling class or Adani and Modi. Unfortunately, even good science-based ecology has earned a bad reputation in Sri Lanka due to pseudo-science based environmental groups. These environmental” NGOs, organic food vendors, Natha-Deyyo-arsenic cabals and others got Gotabhaya’s government to ban agrochemicals, created famine, triggered a farmer uprising, an aragalaya joined in, and made Gota Go Home
The Indian continent and Sri Lanka have been separate geographic entities since the time of the last Ice Age some 10 centuries BCE. A unique biodiversity in Sri Lanka distinct from that of the continent evolved in Lanka. The physical separation has protected Sri Lanka from epidemics and infections that rage in insalubrious India. A land bridge and such links connecting Sri Lanka with India will completely upset the existing bio-ecosystem and inflame ethnic-identity politics. I had written about this (Island newspaper: 19th July 2015 ) when the then Yahapalanaya government proposed a land bridge to India.
To give just one example, the early work of Philips (1935) on Lankan mammals has been handsomely updated by Asoka Yapa and Ratnavira in their monumental ‘The mammals of Sri Lanka’ (2013). The 50 km separation of India has given the Island 126 species of mammals, and no other island of comparable size is as diverse, with 1/5 of this diversity endemic to Lanka! Since local politicians (Vavullu”) cross easily from side to side, Sri Lanka even has over 15 species of bats. The diversity of plants specific to Sri Lanka can be discerned from the web pages dh-web.org/place.names/bot2sinhala.html.
What is true for biodiversity is also true for cultural diversity. The Hinduism of Jaffna relates to the early monistic form of the Saiva Siddhanatha” due to saint Thirumular. In contrast, Tamil-Nadu Saivism is pluralistic and follows Aghorasiva, who rejected the monism” of Thirumular. Given a land bridge, the more profitable northern Kovils will pass into Indian hands. The Saivism offered will become the Saiva Siddhanatha of Aghorasiva. While Sinhala and Tamil cultures co-existed within Lanka until the advent of Chelvanayagams exclusive Tamil homelands” doctrine, any free access to the tycoons of Tamil Nadu will erode the identity of Lankan-Tamil and Sinhalese Cultures as well. The latter, used to centuries of such interactions may survive the challenge of a land bridge, while Lankan Tamil culture will be stifled by the embrace of Tamil Nadu.
All this does not mean that a free-trade zone with India should not be an objective for Sri Lanka. However, this has to be done from a position of economic strength and not when fire-sale conditions of disaster capitalism exist in the country. The first objective must be to achieve energy and food self sufficiency – perfectly achievable, as outlined by me in previous articles (e.g., Island article 12th August 2021). Then only should the nation seek unbridled international free-trade links.
You see some pretty sick stuff when you do my job, but I just read something sicker than any Congo cannibal buffet. It’s an article by a posh little Limey named Jeremy Brown condemning the Sri Lankan Government for being too messy in putting down the LTTE, and demanding that we stop buying the cheap textiles the poor Sinhalese make their living churning out.
What’s sick about this is that the British establishment destroyed the Sinhalese people completely. Completely and purposely, sadistically; stole their land, humiliated and massacred their government and made it Imperial policy to erase every shred of self-respect the Sinhalese had left. You can talk about the Nazis all day long, but for my money nothing they did was as gross as what you find out when you actually look into the history of British-Sinhalese relations. If you can even call them relations” – I guess a murder-rape is a sort of relationship.
But nobody knows about it. Weird, huh? Nothing ‘weirds’ me out more than the total news blackout the Brits have managed to put on all the sick shit they did to brown and black people all over the world. They had a system, and it worked. They’d grab some paradise island in the tropics, use the Royal Navy to wall it off from the rest of the world and crush the local tribe. If the locals resisted, the Brits would starve them to death, shoot them down, infect them with smallpox or get them addicted to opium – whatever they had to do to gang-rape the locals so bad that they would lose the will to resist.
And to this day, they don’t catch even a little bit of Hell for it. Everybody thinks the Brits are all cute and harmless. You’re all a bunch of suckers for those suave accents, you suckers! The truth is that compared to the Brits, the Nazis who people are always whining about, were a gang of eighth-grade stoners who ran around spray-painting swastikas on school property. The Nazis lasted one decade; the Brits quietly ran their extermination programs for three hundred years and to this day they wouldn’t even think of feeling guilty about it – it wouldn’t cross their minds.
That’s what made me want to puke battery acid when I read Mister Jeremy Brown’s sermon on the naughty Sinhalese: this pig Brown has no clue about why Sri Lanka is so fucked up, no hint at all that it’s the result of British Imperial policy. Not mistakes” or a few bad apples” or regrettable excesses” but clear, cold, ruthless British policy.
One of the funniest bits in Brown’s little Anglican sermon to the Sinhalese is when he mentions Arthur C. Clarke, the Brit sci-fi writer who moved to Sri Lanka. The
reason that’s funny is that a few years back, when he was too senile and drunk to watch his tongue, Clarke admitted in an interview that the whole reason he moved to Sri Lanka is for the boys.” As in, he liked to rape little boys, and they were cheap and pretty in the dear old ex-colony. The Brits wouldn’t stop raping the Sinhalese even after their troops were forced (sorry, withdrawn) from the island.
Jeremy Brown wouldn’t know that, of course. To him, Clarke is a wonderful example of all the wonderful things British people have done for poor little Sri Lanka:
Britain has helped to rebuild Sri Lanka’s tourist industry: Britons accounted for 18.5 per cent of the foreigners who visited the former colony’s famous beaches, wildlife parks, tea plantations and Buddhist temples last year. Only India sends more tourists. Many Britons also own property there, especially around the southern city of Galle, not far from where Arthur C. Clarke, the British science fiction writer who settled in Sri Lanka, used to love to scuba dive. [ Is that what they’re calling it these days? ]
So the question facing British shoppers and holidaymakers is this: should they continue to support Sri Lanka’s garment and tourist industries?
Don’t you love that last sentence: Sadly, the answer must be no.” Anybody who can write a sentence like that without blowing his brains out at the monitor is a hopeless twit anyway, but let’s help Jeremy out a little bit, folks, let’s go back in time and take a quick look at all the wonderful things the Brits did for these rotten, ungrateful Sinhalese.
The pattern you see in the colonizing of Sri Lanka is a real familiar one, if you study the European naval empires: the Portuguese, the greatest sailors and explorers, came to Sri Lanka long before the Brits, claimed the place, but couldn’t hold on to it. The Portuguese lost the island to the Dutch, those up & coming Protestant go-getters, in the mid-1600s. That’s another pattern you see everywhere, the old Papist powers losing out to the Protestants, who were just faster and smarter.
The next stage was also totally by the book: the Brits, the canopy tree if you know what I mean, come along and force the Dutch out. There were times the Brits sort of liked the Dutch; they were Protestant, at least, and blonde/blue-eyed. But business was business, and the Brits realized, by the end of the 1700s, that Ceylon was worth taking. Of course they didn’t say that in public; the official reason was that they had to boot the Dutch to guard the island from the nasty radical Frenchies.
That way of stealing islands, making it sound like you had to take them for the greater good–that was classic Brit strategy. They always made it look like they were forced, against their will, to grab this or that colony. I don’t know if you all ever saw a movie called Erik the Viking”, but it has a great scene with John Cleese playing this insane bloodthirsty warlord who orders people tortured to death in this tired, disappointed upper-class voice, and then whines, It’s the stress that gets you” – all put upon and harassed ( the ‘White Man’s burden’ ). That’s a perfect image for the way the Brits booted the Dutch out of Ceylon, tut-tutting while they stole every shed, cannon and bale of tea on the island.
With the Dutch trade rivals gone, the Brits had only one problem left: those damned natives, the Sinhala, or Kandyans” as they were called back then. The name, Kandyans,” came from the fact that their main city was Kandy, up in the highlands in the south of the island, the fat part of the teardrop. The Sinhala lived in the highlands for the simple reason that it was a little cooler, not as totally malarial, up there compared to the coastal marshes.
By all accounts, the Sinhala/Kandyans were harmless slackers, who didn’t need or want much from the outside world. All they asked was for people to leave them alone up on their big rocky highlands to do their Buddhist thing. Unfortunately that wasn’t British policy. It irked the redcoats that Kandy still had a king, an army, all this impudent baggage that went with independence. The British decided to break the Sinhalese completely and crush their whole society.
You have to remember that by this time, the early 1800s, the Brits had perfected their techniques in little experiments all over the world. Those Clockwork Orange shrinks were amateurs compared to the Imperial Civil Service. They had dozens of ways of undermining native kingdoms.
British administrators were trained to do a kind of rough, quick sociological sketch of the natives, get a sense of the fault lines and then figure out how to exploit them. The Brits saw fast that the Kandyans were a sluggish bunch of people divided into rigid castes in the classic subcontinent pattern. That made it easy: the Brits made two big castes their official pets and shunned the others, setting up a violent hate between different parts of Sinhalese society. That guaranteed that if the diehard Sinhalese/Kandyan nationalists ever revolted, the teacher’s-pet castes would have a good selfish reason to help massacre them. ( It’s called ‘divide & rule ’)
Then there was the Kandyan king himself. The Brits weren’t dumb in the way Paul Bremer was dumb, de-Baathifying” Iraq. They loved corrupt local rulers. Much easier and cheaper to bribe one fat old degenerate on a throne than
negotiate with all the commoners. So the Brits started playing with the nervous, Kandyan royals, scaring them with the threat of losing everything and then teasing them with the possibility of the safe, soft life of a Brit puppet.
This was the major league of colonialism. To give you an idea of how important Ceylon/Sri Lanka was back then, try this on: in 1802, when French armies were kicking British and Prussian and Italian and Russians all over Europe (weird how nobody remembers that?), the Brits were so terrified they tried to give Napoleon all their colonies except Sri Lanka and Trinidad. Those were the two they needed to keep.
THE KANDY MEN: No match for the British vampire lords
And this is where another standard Brit policy came into play – a real smart one that we ought to be imitating: use native auxiliaries, not homeland troops, as much as possible. For all kinds of reasons, but here are the main ones:
1. If you bring in troops from some remote part of the Empire to do your dirty work, it’s those troops, those faces and accents, the locals will remember, and hate, for generations. So you, the sly little pink Brit administrator, can stroll in later and commiserate with the locals as they show you around their burned huts, bayoneted kids, etc., and even say with a straight face, Oh my, those auxiliaries from wherever; what heathens? Outrageous! I shall certainly let Whitehall know about these abuses.” Then, of course, you get in his sedan chair, close the curtains and chuckle all the way home to where his personal ‘native’bum-boy was waiting.
2. Nobody back in London counts casualties as long as it’s Malay mercenaries dying. You can lose a lot of them–and a lot of Malays did die fighting the Sinhala, especially in the total rout of a malaria-sapped British/Malay force at the Mahaveli River in 1803 – but nobody is going to make a fuss in the Times of London (Mister Jeremy Brown’s paper, as you may recall). If you’re lucky they’ll pop off before payday and you can keep their payroll for that estate in Shropshire.
3. Dropping hot-blooded feisty Malay Muslims with guns far from home and making them fight Sinhalese bleeds Malay society as well as Sinhalese. Left in peace, Malays could be trouble – a proud, warlike people. So by sending them to die in Ceylon, you’re diverting all that young, angry Malay blood away from SE Asia and using it to bleed Kandy. Two birds with one blood-soaked stone.
You see why I get impatient with you gullible suckers yammering about the Nazis? The Nazis were retards, a white-trash tantrum, an eighth-grade chemistry-class
pipe bomb, a quick-fizzle flash in the pan, compared to the Brits, the scariest motherfuckers ever to butt-fuck the planet.
The mercenaries the Brits sent to crush the Kandyans were Malays, Muslims from SE Asia who didn’t need a lot of pep talks to slaughter South Asian Buddhists (and steal their chickens). That was life for the Brits back then, at the top of their game: picking up pieces from one part of the world and dropping them where they’d do the most harm, half the world away. Ah yes, let’s ferry some Malay mercenaries to Kandy, that should give the bloody idol-worshippers something to think about!”
Destroying Buddhism was a big part of Brit policy. The Buddhist routine, the temples, begging monks, long boring prayers – it was the glue that kept Kandy together. So the Brits decided to destroy it. They even said so, in private memos to each other. They weren’t shy in those days. Here’s the Brit governor in 1807: Reliance on Buddhism must be destroyed. Make sure all [village] chiefs are Christian.”
Up to 1818, the Brits had a blast messing with doomed Sinhala rebellions; a good time was had by all, except the Sinhalese. They had a very, very bad time, and it was about to get worse.
See, another constant you’ll find in British imperial policy is that although they’re very sly and patient, they have a very good sense of when to cut the crap and just wipe out a tribe that’s been annoying them for too long. They were getting sick of the Sinhalese, with all their bickering and intrigue; the redcoats just weren’t enjoying the game the way they used to, so boom: the kill ’em all” era began.
But they did it smart, not like the idiot boastful Nazis you all love to obsess on. I bet every one on the planet can name the Nazi death camps, but I’d be surprised if more than, say, a half dozen people outside Sri Lanka can name the policy the Brits used to destroy the Sinhala for good. Anybody? Didn’t think so! See, here’s another little tip for up and coming genocidaires out there: always pick the most boring name possible. Those Nazis, with their heavy-metal jewellery and stupid titles! Dopes! You want extermination programs with names that put everybody to sleep.
And that’s why in 1818 Britain brought the wasteland policy” to Kandy. They could have called it what that Liberian whacko called his campaign: Operation No Living Thing.” – that’s what it meant: Brit-led troops draining the sea” the Sinhala irregulars swam in by burning every hut, every field, and killing every animal in every village they suspected of harbouring rebels.”
Now that’s another key Brit imperial technique: that word rebels.” Blows me away: how can a Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, fighting for the country his people have owned for a hundred generations, be a rebel”? And the pipsqueak redcoat officers hunting him down, were born and raised in Britain. He was not the rebel,” he was the force of law and order, the rightful authority. It’s quite a racket if you have the sheer, sociopathic nerve to say it with a straight face. (I’m talking to you, Mister Jeremy Brown!)
What does rebel” mean, anyway? I’ve noticed that in English press it’s a bad word. Here, in the US of A, it’s different, because we were the rebels in 1775 and proud of it. But see, people who know the American Revolution think that the Brit policy against the Yankees, where (give or take a Banastre Tarlteton or two), the redcoats tried to avoid killing civvies, was normal Imperial policy. Bullshit! The reason the Brits let us go and didn’t try scorched-earth on us, was that we WERE Brits, as far as they could tell: white protestant English-speaking humans. If you weren’t all of the above, you weren’t human. The only other war where English troops had the same restraint was – take a wild guess. Right: the English Civil War. In England, they fought clean. But when Cromwell marched up to subdue the Scots, who were Protestant (good) but non-English (bad), a lot of POWs never made it back to the holding pens and a lot of crofts were torched, and a lot of girls were raped. When he moved from Scotland to Ireland, where the filthy locals were filthy Papist as well as non-English, well, you don’t want to know what happened there.
So in places like Sri Lanka, full of brown heathens, Brit policy had nothing to do with fucking Yorktown – more like Dresden, only lower-tech.
The Wasteland Policy” was smart and mean at the same time–another sure mark of the Brit imperial touch. It was designed to deny the rebels” support in the short term, but in the long term it was pure punishment, taking away the land, livestock and other assets of all the Sinhalese who were even suspected of being rebel”-lovers.
And it worked. To this day, 200 years later, the Sinhalese castes that backed the rebels are dirt poor, and worse: they’re hated by everybody around them and they even hate themselves. And nobody even remembers who did it to them, poor lab rats. They think it’s their own fault, that there’s something wrong with them.
There’s more, and worse, but to tell the truth, this is making me sick. I’ve tried to tell this story a dozen times and nobody wants to know. You just end up vomiting battery acid all night, and pigs like Mister Jeremy Brown of the Times of London never lose one second of sleep over all those bodies and all those lies and sheer nastiness. What’s the use? I’ll just fast-forward through a couple of highlight
shots. Take reprisals, you know, like those bad old Nazis used to do after a rebel” attack? The Brits were there way before the Nazis. They took revenge for a half-assed Kandyan revolt by killing one out of every hundred Sinhalese. Like, at random. To keep it fair, you know, not play favourites.
And then the nastiest imperial weapon of all: the demographic bomb. This was a Brit specialty all over the world (see Fiji for a weirdly similar case). The Brits ran India, so they had total control over millions of obedient Tamil peasants who were starving, desperate, and ready to go anywhere, just pile into the hold of a ship and get out to cut cane or plant rice in some place that may as well have been on the moon for all they knew.
So along with the massacre/reprisals, the Brits came up with one of their classic two-birds-one-stone plans: to neutralise the Sinhalese, let’s import huge hordes of Tamils from India! They’re cheap and docile and they’ll give the Sinhala something to keep them busy even after we have to leave the island – and meanwhile they’ll drive the price of labour down even further. Brilliant, chaps, absolutely brilliant!
And they did it. It worked so well it’s still working today. And when they were done totally destroying the poor Sinhalese, the Brits did what they do best, better than any other murder gang on the planet, they took that amnesia zapper from Men in Black” and zapped everyone in Sri Lanka, then turned it on themselves and were suddenly so innocent, so damn virtuous and clean, that a pig like Mister Jeremy Brown can actually sit down at a computer and boast about all the wonderful times England has raped Sri Lanka, from olden times right down to Arthur C. Clarke buggering every little boy on the island. One hell of a job, Brownie! Satan himself must be shaking his head, muttering, Gotta give it to the fuckin’ Limeys, damn it, they’ve got no shame at all; ya gotta admire that. Damn, even I wouldn’t have had the gall to talk like that. Jeremy Brown. I’m putting him down for CEO of the Hell Propagandastaffel” the minute his liver packs up and he lands down here.”
LankaPropertyWeb (LPW), the leading real estate portal in Sri Lanka, proudly announces groundbreaking enhancements set to revolutionise the real estate marketing industry. Demonstrating an unwavering commitment to innovation, LankaPropertyWeb introduces two cutting-edge features – the AI-powered social Media Promo Add-On Package and the ML Image Recognition Tool – designed to transform property listings and streamline marketing efforts.
A.M.Pl.I.F.I.E.R – AI-Powered Instant Social Media Promo Tool: Elevating Property Visibility
LankaPropertyWeb introduces the AI-powered social Media Promo Tool – A.M.Pl.I.F.I.E.R (Automated Multi-Platform Integration For Instant Extra Reach) which will allow advertisers on its site to promote their ads instantly on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. What’s more, using AI the tool will generate videos based on images uploaded, add a trending soundtrack to the videos, and generate personalised captions and hashtags for each platform using ChatGPT, within seconds.
This pioneering tool for a real estate portal aims to revolutionise advertising efficiency, offering advertisers a trifecta of key benefits. Firstly, streamline your marketing endeavours through state-of-the-art automated features, unlocking significant time and resource savings. This empowers your team to redirect efforts toward the strategic pillars driving your business forward. Secondly, elevate audience interaction and connection with OpenAI-generated content, infusing your posts with an irresistible appeal that captivates and resonates. Lastly, bid farewell to the laborious tasks of manual posting and editing, embracing a new era of effortless marketing that allows you to concentrate on the core strategic facets of your business. With these transformative advantages, our platform is poised to redefine your advertising approach, delivering unparalleled efficiency, engagement, and strategic focus for unrivalled business success.
In its relentless pursuit of innovation, LankaPropertyWeb introduces Machine Learning Image Recognition.
The tool introduces a range of benefits aimed at transforming the landscape of online listings. Firstly, its advanced image recognition capability empowers users by efficiently detecting and eliminating spam images, thereby elevating the overall quality of listings. Additionally, the tool ensures a personalised browsing experience through accurate image labelling, allowing users with specific interests to be presented with tailored ads of similar types, such as ‘bedroom’ or ‘garden.’ Furthermore, LPW enhances the visual appeal of listings by providing image optimisation features and addressing issues like dark or poorly lit images. Lastly, the tool incorporates state-of-the-art duplicate image recognition, eliminating redundancy and guaranteeing that listings remain unique and diverse.
These advancements represent a remarkable leap forward in real estate marketing, underscoring LankaPropertyWeb’s steadfast commitment to delivering cutting-edge solutions tailored to the ever-evolving needs of real estate professionals. Seizing the opportunity to embrace the power of precision in visual content, they can elevate their real estate marketing strategy with these innovative tools. Embarking on a journey to explore the future of property presentation through LankaPropertyWeb’s latest updates, they position themselves ahead of the curve in the competitive landscape. Staying at the forefront of industry progress, they redefine their approach to real estate marketing with progressive solutions that set new standards in the field.
‘The sacrifices made by our brave soldiers in protecting our nation’s sovereignty and integrity are immeasurable. Many of them have endured life-altering injuries in the line of duty, yet their spirit remains unbroken and their dedication unwavering. It is our solemn duty to ensure that they receive the care and support they deserve’.
The State Minister of Defence Hon. Premitha Bandara Tennakoon said so while gracing as the chief guest at a ceremony held to distribute prosthetic limbs among disabled war veterans at the Ranaviru Sewana in Ragama yesterday (May 07).
The Defence Secretary General Kamal Gunarathne warmly received the State Minister on his arrival at Ranaviru Sewana.
In a collaborative effort between the Ministry of Defence and the High Commission of India in Colombo, the distribution of 650 prosthetic limbs among disabled war veterans was inaugurated during the ceremony and the State Minister joined to give away prosthetic limbs in a symbolic gesture.
Speaking further, Minister Tennakoon extended his deepest gratitude to the Indian High Commissioner, H.E. Santosh Jha and the Government of India for their unwavering commitment to support the Sri Lankan war veterans.
Army Commander Lieutenant General Vikum Liyanage, Chairperson of the Ranaviru Sewa Authority Major General Nishantha Manage, Army Adjutant General Major General Nalinda Niyangoda, Indian Defence Attaché Captain M. Anand and representatives of prosthetic limbs manufacturing firm were also present at the occasion.
The Ministry of Defence has learned that a number of retired war veterans who had immensely devoted their lives to defend the country during the 30 – year long terrorist war have got caught to a scheme by some illegal foreign job agents and have sent to the Russian-Ukrainian war front as members of mercenary groups.
It is also revealed that a significant number of war veterans have died and sustained injuries at the battlefield. It is regrettable that such war veterans who have served and retired with honour in the armed forces of Sri Lanka are acting as mercenaries in foreign countries. These war veterans have left to the Russian-Ukrainian war front as mercenaries after being duped by these human traffickers who had promised them opportunity to join the foreign army, handsome salary, citizenship in those countries and other benefits. However, neither the serving nor the injured had received any salaries or benefits and these traffickers have not even given any sort of compensation to the families of those injured or the dead. Further, they have failed to provide any information of the whereabouts of those war veterans to their families as well.
The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are making great efforts to obtain factual information about the war veterans and casualties at the Russian-Ukrainian war front.
The Defence Secretary has made a special request to the war veterans not to be caught to such illegal schemes and put their lives at risk by joining foreign mercenary groups and also think of the plight of their families before doing so.
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Police and Intelligence agencies have launched extensive operations to arrest such illegal human traffickers and several people involved in it have already been taken into custody.
While emphasizing that these war veterans who are Sri Lankan citizens cannot be allowed to be used as mercenaries in foreign land and put their lives at risk, the Defence Secretary further states that the law will be strictly enforced against the illegal human smugglers, establishments and others involved in these illegal activities.
May 8 (AdaDerana) – Sri Lanka has shown a significant drop in annual birth rate while the number of annual deaths has increased since 2020, the Registrar General’s Department revealed.
The Senior Deputy Registrar General, Attorney-at-Law Lakshika Ganepola stated that the number of annual births which was around 325,000 before 2020 has now decreased to 280,000.
Meanwhile, the number of annual deaths has increased to around 180,000, which was 140,000 before 2020, as per reports.
The Registrar General’s Department points out that this situation will adversely affect Sri Lanka’s population growth.
In another survey, Professor Wasantha Athukorala, who participated in the survey from the Department of Economics and Statistics of the University of Peradeniya, revealed that Sri Lanka’s population dropped by 144,000 in 2023 compared to 2022. That is a 0.6% decrease.
The survey data suggests a combination of factors contributing to this decline.
These include an increase in the death rate, a decrease in the birth rate, and a rise in emigration.
Compared to the previous year, the number of births in 2023 fell by 27,421. The number of deaths has gone up by 8%.
The report also indicates a decrease of 19,784 marriages.
Former CEO of the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA) Dr. Vijith Gunasekara, has been arrested by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) on Wednesday (08).
He has been questioned for more than 10 hours following the arrest.
Dr. Gunasekara was apprehended by the CID in connection with the procurement of substandard human intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) vials.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 08) declared that State Minister Diana Gamage is not legally qualified to hold a parliamentary seat.
Accordingly, delivering its verdict today, the three-judge Supreme Court bench decided that State Minister Diana Gamage is not eligible to hold the position of Member of Parliament.
The court had concluded the hearing of an appeal filed challenging the Appeals Court’s dismissal of a petition against State Minister Diana Gamage’s parliamentary membership. Upon concluding the proceedings on February 13, the judge bench decided to defer its verdict indefinitely.
Social activist Oshala Herath had put forward the appeals two weeks after the petition he had filed against the State Minister’s parliamentary seat and citizenship was dismissed by the Appeals Court.
Naming Gamage and several others as the respondents of his appeal, Herath said he had previously filed a petition alleging that the lawmaker is unqualified to hold the position of a member of parliament in Sri Lanka, as she also holds dual citizenship.
May day has come and gone leaving a few significant lessons for the major political parties. First lesson is that the NPP has shown that they are a force to reckon with. They were able to muster massive crowds not only at the main venue in Colombo but assemble similar numberss in three outstations simultaneously. They were oozing with confidence. But head counts have to be converted to votes. A good example are the mammoth crowds that the JVP mustered by the JVP on Galle Face before the 2019 Presidential elections. But JVP was not able to exceed 4 % of the votes at the Presidnential elections and the subsequent Parliamentary elections.
That is history of politics in SL which has become irrellevant today. It has has changed radically during the last few years. The shock of Corvid 19 and the catharsis of the economic debacle has changed the very basis of the belief in Parliamentay democracy. The present blooming emergence of the NPP will lead to serious brainstorming on the best way to meet the looming threat. It will be desperate maneurvers for survival where some will have to make sacrifices. New strategies will be adopted. New alliances will be made. A likely coalition will be for the old UNP parties to forge together. They have no major policy differences other than the Sajith’s ego which can be assuaged making him number two and be the chief in the next round. With many of Sajith’s group joining Ranil it will be difficult for Sajith to get up to 50 percent plus.
The present strength of the SLPP has not been tested. They seem to still depend on the leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa. The presence of Basil has supresed the emergence of Namal as a leader. Basil is a drag on the party but the backing of US. SLPP also has the support of the conservative left. They also have the advantage of the force of inertia which will be there with the 6.9 million people who voted with the SLPP. They have to do some soul searching before they change their previous stand. Ranil may prefer to work with Basil rather than with Sajith who has a grievance against him.
This being the Presidential election the candidate matters as much as the perfomance and policies of his party. Ranil has already played two trump cards which the opposition has not callenged. His Aswesuma is another temporary handout which has little lasting impact. It would have been much better if at least half of the Aswesuma is used to create productive employment. Give fishing rods rather than some fish. His second trump card is the issue of land grants to LDO permit holders. Making peasant lands a marketable commodity will result in fragmentation, litigation and transfer of land to mudalalis and foreigners. The most recent trump he has pulled out is the wage increase of Plantaion workers against the wishes of the Plantation owners. The outcome is that the Minister threatens to renationalize the plantations. It is a contradictory situation where profit making state enterprises are privatized and loss makin plantions are nationalised. His immmediate bugbear is the settlement of the ISB payments which was his own making under the Yahapalanaya.
A new progressive force is emerging with the rise of the MJP of whih the strength is th presidential candidate. This dark horse candidate has no past baggage and is a tested out professional but his new pary MJP is still not visible although Derana has done plenty of ground work which wiil be of immense use. A strong left force can be molded if MJP joins the CP, Wimal and Gammanpila combinations. They have the most compelling indictments on Ranil and his politics. The more they condemn Ranil the NPP will also benefit from it.
At the moment the NPP apperars to be moving towards the crest of a wave in popularity. They have only to maintain the momentum and not do any stupid thing, for which they have a popensity, to be on top in the next few months.
They allow you to explore the world, now and back through the years. Which nations are spending how much money on militaries? Which are spending how much per capita? Which are exporting weapons? Which are importing weapons from the dominant weapons exporter (hint: it’s also the self-appointed captain of the Rules Based Order)?
Which nations have wars? Is there any overlap with those producing weapons? Which nations possess which horrible weapons?
What is the shape of the U.S.-NATO global empire: where are the bases? how many troops are there? For more details on bases, you can also click through to this source, also newly updated: https://worldbeyondwar.org/no-bases
Which nations are supporting peaceful initiatives, treaties, and institutions that might reduce the slaughter of war? And which still need to be urged to do so?
We make these resources available to the world for the betterment of the peace movements of the world, even while struggling to pay our bills and uncertain of our future because of it. Please share them widely.
In Washington-Speak, Palestinian State” Means Fried Chicken”
The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world’s conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders — with minor and mutual modifications,” to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.
The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar.
There was one important and revealing break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognized that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his parameters”: imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 to resolve the differences and were making considerable progress. In their final press conference, they reported that, with a little more time, they could probably have reached full agreement. Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, however, and official progress then terminated, though informal discussions at a high level continued leading to the Geneva Accord, rejected by Israel and ignored by the U.S.
A good deal has happened since, but a settlement along those lines is still not out of reach — if, of course, Washington is once again willing to accept it. Unfortunately, there is little sign of that.
Substantial mythology has been created about the entire record, but the basic facts are clear enough and quite well documented.
The U.S. and Israel have been acting in tandem to extend and deepen the occupation. In 2005, recognizing that it was pointless to subsidize a few thousand Israeli settlers in Gaza, who were appropriating substantial resources and protected by a large part of the Israeli army, the government of Ariel Sharon decided to move them to the much more valuable West Bank and Golan Heights.
Instead of carrying out the operation straightforwardly, as would have been easy enough, the government decided to stage a national trauma,” which virtually duplicated the farce accompanying the withdrawal from the Sinai desert after the Camp David agreements of 1978-79. In each case, the withdrawal permitted the cry of Never Again,” which meant in practice: we cannot abandon an inch of the Palestinian territories that we want to take in violation of international law. This farce played very well in the West, though it was ridiculed by more astute Israeli commentators, among them that country’s prominent sociologist the late Baruch Kimmerling.
After its formal withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Israel never actually relinquished its total control over the territory, often described realistically as the world’s largest prison.” In January 2006, a few months after the withdrawal, Palestine had an election that was recognized as free and fair by international observers. Palestinians, however, voted the wrong way,” electing Hamas. Instantly, the U.S. and Israel intensified their assault against Gazans as punishment for this misdeed. The facts and the reasoning were not concealed; rather, they were openly published alongside reverential commentary on Washington’s sincere dedication to democracy. The U.S.-backed Israeli assault against the Gazans has only been intensified since, thanks to violence and economic strangulation, increasingly savage.
Meanwhile in the West Bank, always with firm U.S. backing, Israel has been carrying forward longstanding programs to take the valuable land and resources of the Palestinians and leave them in unviable cantons, mostly out of sight. Israeli commentators frankly refer to these goals as neocolonial.” Ariel Sharon, the main architect of the settlement programs, called these cantons Bantustans,” though the term is misleading: South Africa needed the majority black workforce, while Israel would be happy if the Palestinians disappeared, and its policies are directed to that end.
Blockading Gaza by Land and Sea
One step towards cantonization and the undermining of hopes for Palestinian national survival is the separation of Gaza from the West Bank. These hopes have been almost entirely consigned to oblivion, an atrocity to which we should not contribute by tacit consent. Israeli journalist Amira Hass, one of the leading specialists on Gaza, writes that
the restrictions on Palestinian movement that Israel introduced in January 1991 reversed a process that had been initiated in June 1967. Back then, and for the first time since 1948, a large portion of the Palestinian people again lived in the open territory of a single country — to be sure, one that was occupied, but was nevertheless whole.… The total separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank is one of the greatest achievements of Israeli politics, whose overarching objective is to prevent a solution based on international decisions and understandings and instead dictate an arrangement based on Israel’s military superiority.…
Since January 1991, Israel has bureaucratically and logistically merely perfected the split and the separation: not only between Palestinians in the occupied territories and their brothers in Israel, but also between the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem and those in the rest of the territories and between Gazans and West Bankers/Jerusalemites. Jews live in this same piece of land within a superior and separate system of privileges, laws, services, physical infrastructure and freedom of movement.”
The leading academic specialist on Gaza, Harvard scholar Sara Roy, adds:
Gaza is an example of a society that has been deliberately reduced to a state of abject destitution, its once productive population transformed into one of aid-dependent paupers.… Gaza’s subjection began long before Israel’s recent war against it [December 2008]. The Israeli occupation — now largely forgotten or denied by the international community — has devastated Gaza’s economy and people, especially since 2006…. After Israel’s December [2008] assault, Gaza’s already compromised conditions have become virtually unlivable. Livelihoods, homes, and public infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed on a scale that even the Israel Defense Forces admitted was indefensible.
In Gaza today, there is no private sector to speak of and no industry. 80 percent of Gaza’s agricultural crops were destroyed and Israel continues to snipe at farmers attempting to plant and tend fields near the well-fenced and patrolled border. Most productive activity has been extinguished.… Today, 96 percent of Gaza’s population of 1.4 million is dependent on humanitarian aid for basic needs. According to the World Food Programme, the Gaza Strip requires a minimum of 400 trucks of food every day just to meet the basic nutritional needs of the population. Yet, despite a March [22, 2009] decision by the Israeli cabinet to lift all restrictions on foodstuffs entering Gaza, only 653 trucks of food and other supplies were allowed entry during the week of May 10, at best meeting 23 percent of required need. Israel now allows only 30 to 40 commercial items to enter Gaza compared to 4,000 approved products prior to June 2006.”
It cannot be too often stressed that Israel had no credible pretext for its 2008–9 attack on Gaza, with full U.S. support and illegally using U.S. weapons. Near-universal opinion asserts the contrary, claiming that Israel was acting in self-defense. That is utterly unsustainable, in light of Israel’s flat rejection of peaceful means that were readily available, as Israel and its U.S. partner in crime knew very well. That aside, Israel’s siege of Gaza is itself an act of war, as Israel of all countries certainly recognizes, having repeatedly justified launching major wars on grounds of partial restrictions on its access to the outside world, though nothing remotely like what it has long imposed on Gaza.
One crucial element of Israel’s criminal siege, little reported, is the naval blockade. Peter Beaumont reports from Gaza that, on its coastal littoral, Gaza’s limitations are marked by a different fence where the bars are Israeli gunboats with their huge wakes, scurrying beyond the Palestinian fishing boats and preventing them from going outside a zone imposed by the warships.” According to reports from the scene, the naval siege has been tightened steadily since 2000. Fishing boats have been driven steadily out of Gaza’s territorial waters and toward the shore by Israeli gunboats, often violently without warning and with many casualties. As a result of these naval actions, Gaza’s fishing industry has virtually collapsed; fishing is impossible near shore because of the contamination caused by Israel’s regular attacks, including the destruction of power plants and sewage facilities.
These Israeli naval attacks began shortly after the discovery by the BG (British Gas) Group of what appear to be quite sizeable natural gas fields in Gaza’s territorial waters. Industry journals report that Israel is already appropriating these Gazan resources for its own use, part of its commitment to shift its economy to natural gas. The standard industry source reports:
Israel’s finance ministry has given the Israel Electric Corp. (IEC) approval to purchase larger quantities of natural gas from BG than originally agreed upon, according to Israeli government sources [which] said the state-owned utility would be able to negotiate for as much as 1.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas from the Marine field located off the Mediterranean coast of the Palestinian controlled Gaza Strip.
Last year the Israeli government approved the purchase of 800 million cubic meters of gas from the field by the IEC…. Recently the Israeli government changed its policy and decided the state-owned utility could buy the entire quantity of gas from the Gaza Marine field. Previously the government had said the IEC could buy half the total amount and the remainder would be bought by private power producers.”
The pillage of what could become a major source of income for Gaza is surely known to U.S. authorities. It is only reasonable to suppose that the intention to appropriate these limited resources, either by Israel alone or together with the collaborationist Palestinian Authority, is the motive for preventing Gazan fishing boats from entering Gaza’s territorial waters.
There are some instructive precedents. In 1989, Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans signed a treaty with his Indonesian counterpart Ali Alatas granting Australia rights to the substantial oil reserves in the Indonesian Province of East Timor.” The Indonesia-Australia Timor Gap Treaty, which offered not a crumb to the people whose oil was being stolen, is the only legal agreement anywhere in the world that effectively recognises Indonesia’s right to rule East Timor,” the Australian press reported.
Asked about his willingness to recognize the Indonesian conquest and to rob the sole resource of the conquered territory, which had been subjected to near-genocidal slaughter by the Indonesian invader with the strong support of Australia (along with the U.S., the U.K., and some others), Evans explained that there is no binding legal obligation not to recognise the acquisition of territory that was acquired by force,” adding that the world is a pretty unfair place, littered with examples of acquisition by force.”
It should, then, be unproblematic for Israel to follow suit in Gaza.
A few years later, Evans became the leading figure in the campaign to introduce the concept responsibility to protect” — known as R2P — into international law. R2P is intended to establish an international obligation to protect populations from grave crimes. Evans is the author of a major book on the subject and was co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which issued what is considered the basic document on R2P.
In an article devoted to this idealistic effort to establish a new humanitarian principle,” the London Economist featured Evans and his bold but passionate claim on behalf of a three-word expression which (in quite large part thanks to his efforts) now belongs to the language of diplomacy: the ‘responsibility to protect.’” The article is accompanied by a picture of Evans with the caption Evans: a lifelong passion to protect.” His hand is pressed to his forehead in despair over the difficulties faced by his idealistic effort. The journal chose not to run a different photo that circulates in Australia, depicting Evans and Alatas exuberantly clasping their hands together as they toast the Timor Gap Treaty that they had just signed.
Though a protected population” under international law, Gazans do not fall under the jurisdiction of the responsibility to protect,” joining other unfortunates, in accord with the maxim of Thucydides — that the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must — which holds with its customary precision.
Obama and the Settlements
The kinds of restrictions on movement used to destroy Gaza have long been in force in the West Bank as well, less cruelly but with grim effects on life and the economy. The World Bank reports that Israel has established a complex closure regime that restricts Palestinian access to large areas of the West Bank… The Palestinian economy has remained stagnant, largely because of the sharp downturn in Gaza and Israel’s continued restrictions on Palestinian trade and movement in the West Bank.”
The World Bank cited Israeli roadblocks and checkpoints hindering trade and travel, as well as restrictions on Palestinian building in the West Bank, where the Western-backed government of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas holds sway.” Israel does permit — indeed encourage — a privileged existence for elites in Ramallah and sometimes elsewhere, largely relying on European funding, a traditional feature of colonial and neocolonial practice.
All of this constitutes what Israeli activist Jeff Halper calls a matrix of control” to subdue the colonized population. These systematic programs over more than 40 years aim to establish Defense Minister Moshe Dayan’s recommendation to his colleagues shortly after Israel’s 1967 conquests that we must tell the Palestinians in the territories: We have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads.”
Turning to the second bone of contention, settlements, there is indeed a confrontation, but it is rather less dramatic than portrayed. Washington’s position was presented most strongly in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s much-quoted statement rejecting natural growth exceptions” to the policy opposing new settlements. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with President Shimon Peres and, in fact, virtually the whole Israeli political spectrum, insists on permitting natural growth” within the areas that Israel intends to annex, complaining that the United States is backing down on George W. Bush’s authorization of such expansion within his vision” of a Palestinian state.
Senior Netanyahu cabinet members have gone further. Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz announced that the current Israeli government will not accept in any way the freezing of legal settlement activity in Judea and Samaria.” The term legal” in U.S.-Israeli parlance means illegal, but authorized by the government of Israel with a wink from Washington.” In this usage, unauthorized outposts are termed illegal,” though apart from the dictates of the powerful, they are no more illegal than the settlements granted to Israel under Bush’s vision” and Obama’s scrupulous omission.
The Obama-Clinton hardball” formulation is not new. It repeats the wording of the Bush administration draft of the 2003 Road Map, which stipulates that in Phase I, Israel freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).” All sides formally accept the Road Map (modified to drop the phrase natural growth”) — consistently overlooking the fact that Israel, with U.S. support, at once added 14 reservations” that render it inoperable.
If Obama were at all serious about opposing settlement expansion, he could easily proceed with concrete measures by, for example, reducing U.S. aid by the amount devoted to this purpose. That would hardly be a radical or courageous move. The Bush I administration did so (reducing loan guarantees), but after the Oslo accord in 1993, President Clinton left calculations to the government of Israel. Unsurprisingly, there was no change in the expenditures flowing to the settlements,” the Israeli press reported. [Prime Minister] Rabin will continue not to dry out the settlements,” the report concludes. And the Americans? They will understand.”
Obama administration officials informed the press that the Bush I measures are not under discussion,” and that pressures will be largely symbolic.” In short, Obama understands, just as Clinton and Bush II did.
American Visionaries
At best, settlement expansion is a side issue, rather like the issue of illegal outposts” — namely those that the government of Israel has not authorized. Concentration on these issues diverts attention from the fact that there are no legal outposts” and that it is the existing settlements that are the primary problem to be faced.
The U.S. press reports that a partial freeze has been in place for several years, but settlers have found ways around the strictures… [C]onstruction in the settlements has slowed but never stopped, continuing at an annual rate of about 1,500 to 2,000 units over the past three years. If building continues at the 2008 rate, the 46,500 units already approved will be completed in about 20 years.… If Israel built all the housing units already approved in the nation’s overall master plan for settlements, it would almost double the number of settler homes in the West Bank.” Peace Now, which monitors settlement activities, estimates further that the two largest settlements would double in size: Ariel and Ma’aleh Adumim, built mainly during the Oslo years in the salients that subdivide the West Bank into cantons.
Natural population growth” is largely a myth, Israel’s leading diplomatic correspondent, Akiva Eldar, points out, citing demographic studies by Colonel (res.) Shaul Arieli, deputy military secretary to former prime minister and incumbent defense minister Ehud Barak. Settlement growth consists largely of Israeli immigrants in violation of the Geneva Conventions, assisted with generous subsidies. Much of it is in direct violation of formal government decisions, but carried out with the authorization of the government, specifically Barak, considered a dove in the Israeli spectrum.
Correspondent Jackson Diehl derides the long-dormant Palestinian fantasy,” revived by President Abbas, that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees.” He does not explain why refusal to participate in Israel’s illegal expansion — which, if serious, would force Israel to make critical concessions” — would be improper interference in Israel’s democracy.
Returning to reality, all of these discussions about settlement expansion evade the most crucial issue about settlements: what the United States and Israel have already established in the West Bank. The evasion tacitly concedes that the illegal settlement programs already in place are somehow acceptable (putting aside the Golan Heights, annexed in violation of Security Council orders) — though the Bush vision,” apparently accepted by Obama, moves from tacit to explicit support for these violations of law. What is in place already suffices to ensure that there can be no viable Palestinian self-determination. Hence, there is every indication that even on the unlikely assumption that natural growth” will be ended, U.S.-Israeli rejectionism will persist, blocking the international consensus as before.
Subsequently, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared a 10-month suspension of new construction, with many exemptions, and entirely excluding Greater Jerusalem, where expropriation in Arab areas and construction for Jewish settlers continues at a rapid pace. Hillary Clinton praised these unprecedented” concessions on (illegal) construction, eliciting anger and ridicule in much of the world.
It might be different if a legitimate land swap” were under consideration, a solution approached at Taba and spelled out more fully in the Geneva Accord reached in informal high-level Israel-Palestine negotiations. The accord was presented in Geneva in October 2003, welcomed by much of the world, rejected by Israel, and ignored by the United States.
Washington’s Evenhandedness”
Barack Obama’s June 4, 2009, Cairo address to the Muslim world kept pretty much to his well-honed blank slate” style — with little of substance, but presented in a personable manner that allows listeners to write on the slate what they want to hear. CNN captured its spirit in headlining a report Obama Looks to Reach the Soul of the Muslim World.” Obama had announced the goals of his address in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. ‘We have a joke around the White House,’ the president said. ‘We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East.’” The White House commitment is most welcome, but it is useful to see how it translates into practice.
Obama admonished his audience that it is easy to point fingers… but if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”
Turning from Obama-Friedman Truth to truth, there is a third side, with a decisive role throughout: the United States. But that participant in the conflict Obama omitted. The omission is understood to be normal and appropriate, hence unmentioned: Friedman’s column is headlined Obama Speech Aimed at Both Arabs and Israelis.” The front-page Wall Street Journal report on Obama’s speech appears under the heading Obama Chides Israel, Arabs in His Overture to Muslims.” Other reports are the same.
The convention is understandable on the doctrinal principle that though the U.S. government sometimes makes mistakes, its intentions are by definition benign, even noble. In the world of attractive imagery, Washington has always sought desperately to be an honest broker, yearning to advance peace and justice. The doctrine trumps truth, of which there is little hint in the speech or the mainstream coverage of it.
Obama once again echoed Bush’s vision” of two states, without saying what he meant by the phrase Palestinian state.” His intentions were clarified not only by the crucial omissions already discussed, but also by his one explicit criticism of Israel: The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” That is, Israel should live up to Phase I of the 2003 Road Map, rejected at once by Israel with tacit U.S. support, as noted — though the truth is that Obama has ruled out even steps of the Bush I variety to withdraw from participation in these crimes.
The operative words are legitimacy” and continued.” By omission, Obama indicates that he accepts Bush’s vision: the vast existing settlement and infrastructure projects are legitimate,” thus ensuring that the phrase Palestinian state” means fried chicken.”
Always even-handed, Obama also had an admonition for the Arab states: they must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.” Plainly, however, it cannot be a meaningful beginning” if Obama continues to reject its core principles: implementation of the international consensus. To do so, however, is evidently not Washington’s responsibility” in Obama’s vision; no explanation given, no notice taken.
On democracy, Obama said that we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election” — as in January 2006, when Washington picked the outcome with a vengeance, turning at once to severe punishment of the Palestinians because it did not like the outcome of a peaceful election, all with Obama’s apparent approval judging by his words before, and actions since, taking office.
Obama politely refrained from comment about his host, President Mubarak, one of the most brutal dictators in the region, though he has had some illuminating words about him. As he was about to board a plane to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two moderate” Arab states, Mr. Obama signaled that while he would mention American concerns about human rights in Egypt, he would not challenge Mr. Mubarak too sharply, because he is a ‘force for stability and good’ in the Middle East… Mr. Obama said he did not regard Mr. Mubarak as an authoritarian leader. ‘No, I tend not to use labels for folks,’ Mr. Obama said. The president noted that there had been criticism ‘of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt,’ but he also said that Mr. Mubarak had been ‘a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States.’”
When a politician uses the word folks,” we should brace ourselves for the deceit, or worse, that is coming. Outside of this context, there are people,” or often villains,” and using labels for them is highly meritorious. Obama is right, however, not to have used the word authoritarian,” which is far too mild a label for his friend.
Just as in the past, support for democracy, and for human rights as well, keeps to the pattern that scholarship has repeatedly discovered, correlating closely with strategic and economic objectives. There should be little difficulty in understanding why those whose eyes are not closed tight shut by rigid doctrine dismiss Obama’s yearning for human rights and democracy as a joke in bad taste.
[Note: All material in this piece is sourced and footnoted in Noam Chomsky’s new book Hopes and Prospects.]
Colombo, May 7: The passenger ferry service between Nagapattinam in Tami Nadu and Kankesanthurai (KKS) near Jaffna, which was launched in October 2023, will resume on May 13, the Indian High Commission in Colombo has said.
Sri Lankan Buddhists would be interested to know that Nagapattinam was among the first and the last centres of Buddhism in South India. Even now, there are places like Sangamangalam, Buddhamangalam and Putthakkudy around Nagapattinam, as a reminder of the region’s Buddhist past.
ADVERTISEMENT
Nagapattinam was a major port city of the medieval Chola kingdom (9 th. to the 13 th.Century AD) with maritime trade links with many East Asian countries. Stone and clay statues of the Buddha from the 2nd Century AD and the remains of monasteries were found in Poompuhar, a nearby town.
According to www.medium.com the Pallava king Narasimhavarman II (7th to 8th AD) built a Buddha Vihara at Nagapattinam. The Chudamani Vihara in Nagapattinam was constructed by the Srivijayan king Sri Mara Vijayattungavarman of the Sailendra dynasty with the help of Rajaraja Chola I.
About 350 bronze statues have been unearthed in Nagapattinam. The bronze statues found in Nagapattinam belong to various periods between 9th and the 17th Century AD. Around Nagapattinam, there are also many ancient stone statues of the Buddha (dated between 8th and 10th Century AD) in places such as Pushpavanam, Peruncheri, Buddhamangalam etc. From these names it can be inferred that Mahayana Buddhism thrived in Nagapattinam till 17th Century AD,” www.medium.com says.
Before the ascendance of Saivism and Vaishnavism in Tamil Nadu, Buddhism and Jainism prevailed there. Nagapattinam and Kanchipuram were the main centres of these religions.
At that time, artisans of Nagapattinam produced metal figures of Buddhist and Jain deities besides Hindu gods. This was so till the 13th century. Transient merchants and pilgrims from Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, and China patronised the religious and artistic activities in Nagapattinam. Portable bronze figures of the Buddha were carried by these itinerant communities to South East and East Asia.
In an article in The Hindu, T.S.Subramanian described some of the masterpieces found in Nagapattinam. There is a Buddha sculpture in metal only 52 cm tall. It is a masterpiece in the detail it contains. The Buddha is seated on a throne, his right hand in the upadesa mudra and an umbrella high above his head. An ushnisha (flame of knowledge) is prominent on his head and the creepers around the umbrella signify the Bodhi tree.”
Buddha offering protection. Nagapattinam
Around the Buddha, in the outer row, is a full orchestra” — several men are playing the lute and other stringed instruments, a couple of them are playing percussion instruments like the mridangam and there is also a rasika with his hand stretched out and enjoying the music.”
Buddhism came to South India in the Second Century BC, before the third Sangam period (Third Century BC to Third Century AD). Dr. Nirmala Chandrahasan quotes from Hisselle Dharmaratana Maha Thera’s Buddhism in South India to say that there is evidence that Ven. Mahinda Thera, Emperor Asoka’s son, had spread Buddhism in Tamil Nadu.
Dharmaratna Maha Thera says: Although the chronicles say he arrived through his supernatural powers, scholars are of the opinion that he travelled by sea and called at Kaveripattinam on the east coast of Tamil Nadu on his way to Sri Lanka.”
Dr.Shu Hikosaka, Director Professor of Buddhism, Institute of Asian Studies in Madras, in his book Buddhism in Tamil Nadu a new perspective’ shares Dharmartna Thera’s view.
Hsuan Tsang, the 7th Century Chinese Buddhist monk and traveller, mentions that in the Pandyan kingdom at Madurai, there was a monastery built by Mahinda Thera. He also mentions a stupa built by King Asoka in Kanchipuram. Stone inscriptions of Emperor Asoka (Rock Edict no 3) refer to the Dhamma being spread in the Chola and Pandya country in Tamil Nadu besides Sri Lanka.
Dr. Chandrahasan says that Buddhism flourished in Tamil Nadu in two phases, firstly in the early years of the Pallava rule (400 AD to 650 AD), and secondly in the Chola period mid-9th to the early 14th century AD. There were many centres of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu. Among them were Nagapattinam, Kanchipuram, Kaveripattinam and Uraiyur.
Hsuan Tsang describes Kanchipuram near Chennai as a flourishing city and states that most of its population was Buddhist. He also says that there were over 100 Buddhist monasteries and over a thousand Buddhist monks there. He mentions the presence of 300 monks from Sri Lanka in the monastery in the Southern part of Kanchipuram.
Buddha in meditation, Nagapattinam
The Pallava king Mahendra Varman in his Sanskrit work MattavilasaPrahasana refers to the existence of many Buddhist Viharas, chief of which was the Raja Vihara in his domain.
The interaction between Tamil Nadu monks and Sri Lankan monks is mentioned in the Manimakalai, the 6th Century Tamil literary epic written by Sattanar,” Dr. Chandrahsan points out.
Among the other Tamil literary epics which show the influence of Buddhism are the Silappadhihkaram’ ‘Valaiyapathi Kundalakesi’ and ‘Jivaka Cintamani.
Dr. Hikosaka points out that during the Pallava period Tamil Nadu (275 AD to 897 AD) there were outstanding Tamil Buddhist monks who made remarkable contributions to Buddhist thought and learning. Dr.Chandrahasan mentions Buddhadatte Thera who authored many books. In the Abhidhammaratana, he gives a glowing account of Kaveripattinam and Kanchipuram and the Mahavihara in Sri Lanka.
When Buddhadatta Thera was in Sri Lanka, he composed many Buddhist works such as Uttara Viniccaya, Ruparupa Vibhaga and Jinalankara.
Another famous Tamil monk Dr,Chandrahasan mentions, is Buddhaghosha, a contemporary of Bhuddhadatta. He made a remarkable contribution to Buddhism in Sri Lanka. He stayed and studied Buddhist precepts at the Maha Vihara at Anuradhapura.
KKS-Nagapattinam map
The Visuddimagga was the first work of Buddhaghosha while in Sri Lanka. While staying at the Granthakara Pirivena at Anuradhapura, he rendered Sinhalese commentaries of the Tripitakas into Pali.”
Dhammapala was another Tamil monk mentioned by Dr. Hikosaka. The study of the three monks shows that Tamil Nadu Buddhists were closely associated with Sri Lankan Buddhists. It will be noticed that the monks used the Pali language in their treatises just as in Europe in the middle ages, the Christian monks used Latin,” Dr.Hikosaka points out.
Dr. Chandrahasan argues that since Tamil Nadu was largely Buddhist, one could easily conclude that the Tamil population in the North and East of Sri Lanka was also largely Buddhist. The Tamil Buddhists who followed Theravada Buddhism shared common places of worship with the Sinhalese.
There were also Tamil Buddhists who were followers of Mahayana Buddhism, and these had their own Mahayana temples, she adds.
Colombo, May 4: The 2024 May Day saw-according to some newspapers-41 May Day rallies, meetings or seminars being held throughout the country. Other newspapers lowered the number to 22. Pride of place was given to Colombo where the UNP, JVP/NPP, SLPP and SJB held their rallies. All four parties had big crowds but the attendance was highest at the JVP rally. Furthermore the JVP rallies in Matara and Anuradhapura also had large crowds. Compared to the Thun Sinhala” rallies the JVP rally in Jaffna was a poor show.
The Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC) which is the largest trade union representing plantation workers of Indian descent held its rally in Kotagala. The CWC is a constituent of the Government headed by President Ranil Wickremesinghe. CWC General Secretary Jeevan Thondaman is a Cabinet Minister in the Government. Ranil Wickremesinghe was the chief guest at the huge CWC rally.
ADVERTISEMENT
President Wickremesinghe brought glad tidings of great joy” to the workers gathered in Kotagala. He announced to a wildly cheering audience that the daily wage of plantation workers had been raised from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1,700. The 700 rupee increase amounted to a 70% pay rise. The president displayed a copy of the Gazette proclamation to the people. The plight of the plantation workers has prompted many to describe them as the wretched of the up-country earth”. The daily wage increase would no doubt provide a degree of economic relief to them.
Ranil Wickremesinghe also addressed the UNP rally at Maradana in Colombo. There were no grand announcements as in the case of the Kotagala rally. President Wickremesinghe spoke about the difficult situation in which he took over as President and of the economic progress achieved so far. Ranil repeated his appeal to the main Opposition parties to cooperate with the Government in uplifting the country economically. He urged the SJB and JVP to work with him in implementing the agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) once again, Ranil made no pointed reference to the forthcoming presidential election or about his plans to contest polls.
Both the SJB and UNP May Day Rallies were disappointments in another sense. Prior to May Day there was much speculation in the media that a number of MPs from the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) would climb the SJB stage on May Day thereby indicating they had defected from the SLPP. Likewise there was speculation that some SJB Parliamentarians would mount the UNP stage on May 1st. Neither of these anticipated crossovers took place.
No SJB Crossovers
I do not know why the much-touted appearance of SLPP Parliamentarians on the SJB stage did not happen. Despite the speculation, I had not written anything about it as I felt it was highly improbable. However, I did refer to the possibility of some SJB parliamentarians mounting the UNP stage on May Day in the second part of this article published last week. As such I probed the nonappearance of the Telephone Party MPs and learn the reasons for the non -event.
Apparently arrangements had been made for fourteen MPs from the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) to cross over to the Government side by appearing on the UNP stage on May Day. Ten of these were persons who had been Cabinet ministers, state ministers and deputy ministers in the Good Governance” Government headed by President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe from 2015 to 2019. The SJB hierarchy had suspicions about this. Some SJB Bigwigs were engaged in sweet and sour” talks with the potential dissidents to prevent them from pole vaulting.
In an unexpected turn of events the crossover did not take place. This was not because of pressure by the SJB high command. It was due to the intervention of President Ranil Wickremesinghe himself. When Ranil got to know about the crossover plan hatched by his UNP colleagues, he had vetoed it. The UNP leader had communicated with his party deputies involved in the exercise and told them to call it off. He had also got in touch with some of the SJB parliamentarians concerned and asked them to delay their defection plans.
Wickremesinghe had explained the reasons as to why he did not want a SJB crossover at this point of time to both party leaders as well as potential SJB defectors. Ranil said that he was planning to contest the Presidential election as an independent non -party candidate backed by an assorted alliance of parties, groups and individuals. He would declare his candidacy in June or early July. When that happened Ranil wanted everyone including SJB MPs to support him by joining the alliance backing him. As such he did not want crossovers at this juncture.
Vadivel Suresh
This was why the SJB Parliamentarians did not appear on the UNP platform as expected. Nevertheless some top SJB figures were conspicuous by their absence on the SJB party stage on May Day. As far as the UNP Mayday was concerned only one MP elected on the SJB ticket in 2020 was present on the UNP stage. This was Badulla district MP Vadivel Suresh.
The outspoken Vadivel Suresh has been estranged from Sajith Premadasa for several months. Suresh had organized a meeting of Tamil plantation workers in the Badulla district. Sajith was scheduled to address it. Thousands of worker had forfeited their half-day pay in order to attend the event. Sajith had backed out at the last minute saying he was ill. To Suresh’s chagrin, the Badulla district MP discovered that Premadasa had lied to him about being sick. The leader of the Opposition had gone to a meeting with Sinhala people in the Moneragala district.
Angry over this deception and the shabby treatment meted out to the Badulla district Tamil plantation workers, Suresh demanded that Premadasa apologize to the workers. Sajith agreed but did not do as he promised. Suresh therefore began functioning independently. He has been voting with the Government in Parliament. More importantly Suresh is the General Secretary of the influential Lanka Jathika Estate Workers Union (LJEWU). This has now been brought back under the aegis of the UNP. Hence Suresh’s appearance on the UNP stage was no surprise but not much notice was taken of it.
Gayashan Nawananda
There was however another surprise. Though MPs elected on the SJB ticket did not cross, a single MP elected on the SLPP ticket did cross over on May Day. Moneragala district MP Gayashan Nawananda mounted the UNP stage on May Day. Moreover he brought 800 supporters along with him for the UNP rally. Nawananda, a nominee of Vasudeva Nanayakkara on the SLPP List in 2020 has declared himself an independent after the Aragalaya”.
Nawananda’s presence with 800 supporters was indeed a pleasant surprise to the UNP. Since President Wickremesinghe did not want defections or crossovers at this juncture, Nawananda was not lionised as he ought to have been at the UNP rally. Speaking to reporters the Moneragala MP said it was President Ranil Wickremesinghe who can steer the country forward during these trying times. The MP said his support for President Ranil Wickremesinghe should be considered as his support for the country.
Ranil’s Strategy
Ranil’s decisive action in stopping or postponing the SJB MP crossover at this point in time is due to his evolving strategy in facing the 2024 presidential poll. As stated in the second part of this article last week, Ranil Wickremesinghe intends to project himself on a personal level as a presidential candidate because he regards himself as the best choice. He does not want to be a party nominee. Ranil told Party members that this election would not be a party vs party election. It would be more of a clash between personalities.
Therefore, Wickremesinghe would not have a party label. Instead, he would be an independent non-party common candidate (Nirpakshika Podu Apekshaya) backed by a group of parties, organizations and key individuals. He would come forward as a national candidate” backed by people from all ethnicities, religions, regions and all walks of life. In short, Wickremesinghe would be an independent candidate backed by a coalition or alliance. He will have the backing of the alliance but will not be an alliance candidate.
What is noteworthy is that Ranil will be an independent, non-party candidate and not a nominee of the coalition or alliance. This coalition or alliance would not be a collection of political parties alone. It would be an assortment of parties, segments of parties and party individuals. People may join forces cutting across party lines or political alignments. Party members and groups would De-align” from earlier stances and Re-align” in support of Wickremesinghe.
There was a time when Ranil was toying with the idea of getting some MPs of the SJB to join his Government. He interpreted that move as a re-unification of the UNP rather than the fragmenting of the SJB. Most MPs of the SJB were from the UNP or aligned with the UNP who had split with the grand old party and hitched their wagons to the Sajith Premadasa star only because they wanted to win elections. Very few of them were hostile or opposed to Wickremesinghe.
Basil Rajapaksa
Ranil’s attempts to get back some SJB parliamentarians were proving successful when Basil Rajapaksa threw a spanner in the works. The SLPP insisted that if an SJB MP was brought into the Government and made a minister, it must be evenly matched by an SLPP MP also being appointed a minister. Earlier Ranil had resisted all attempts by Basil to get some SLPP stalwarts inducted into the Cabinet. Among these was Kalutara MP Rohitha Ratharang” Abeygunawardena.
When SJB Kalutara MP Dr.Rajitha Senaratne was about to join the Government, Ratharang” demanded that he too should be made a minister. Appointing Ratharan as a minister was disfavoured by Ranil. So Rajitha’s crossover was put on hold.
Ranil was dependent on SLPP votes in Parliament but he wanted to have the ministers he preferred in Cabinet. Basil Rajapaksa wanted to keep Ranil dependent on the SLPP. He did not want Wickremesinghe to strengthen himself by getting MPs from the SJB or elsewhere. In this tricky situation Ranil chose not to bring in new ministers. Thus even the UNP’s solitary MP Wajira Abeywardana was not made a minister.
Waves not Ripples
With the Presidential election drawing near Ranil’s evolving strategy to win the presidency too began changing. Instead of getting MPs from other parties to break away and support him as individuals or in groups, Ranil wanted them to do so en masse. Instead of garnering support in trickles, he wants a flood. Instead of creating ripples, Ranil wants a wave. What Ranil wants to implement is a wave strategy to win. He wants a Ranil Ralla or pro-Ranil wave of support from multiple parties and MPs. He wants to ride the crest of this wave to win the 2024 Presidency.
It must be noted that Ranil has not openly declared his candidacy so far. When questioned, he sidesteps or diverts. As Bill Clinton famously said It’s the economy stupid”, Ranil too emphasises that reviving the economy is of paramount importance. So when asked about the presidency, he talks about the need to repair the economy and emerge as a non-bankrupt nation first. That is his vision and mission. Contesting the presidency is to continue with that mission. Thus it is open knowledge that Ranil Wickremesinghe will throw his hat into the presidential stakes ring when he is satisfied that a milepost in economic progress has been reached.
Alliance/Coalition
It appears therefore that Ranil will proclaim his presidential candidacy in June or early July. This will be followed by the formation of an alliance or coalition of parties, groups and individuals supporting his candidacy. The spadework would have been done already. Therefore the alliance would be active almost immediately. Thereafter parties and persons can join it or associate themselves with it.
This is where Wickremesinghe’s envisaged wave strategy comes in. The UNP, Dinesh Gunawardene’s MEP, Thondaman’s CWC, Devananda’s EPDP, Athaulla’s NC, Pillaiyan’s TMVP who are all part of the Government will join the alliance and declare support.
On another level the group of SLPP cabinet ministers, state ministers and deputy ministers led by Prasanna Ranatunga would declare support. The independent” group of SLPP dissidents led by Anura Priyadarshana Yapa and SLPP Backbencher group led by Nimal Lanza will also follow suit.
Ranil’s main target however is the UNP break-away SJB and the Tamil and its Muslim party allies. According to UNP circles talks have been almost finalised in this regard. A large number of MPs from the SJB will start joining the pro-Ranil alliance in groups and as individuals. Thereafter the Tamil and Muslim parties aligned with the SJB like the Rishad Bathiudeen led ACMC, Rauff Hakeem led SLMC and Mano Ganesan led TPA are also expected to join the alliance.
Ranil Ralla”
This process by itself would be akin to a wave of support for Wickremesinghe who hopes to ride the crest of this winning wave. He does not want trickles or ripples . He wants a wave or a Ranil Ralla”.
There are however some key questions. Will all the parties and groups back this pro-Ranil alliance as expected? Will there be splits in some parties due to this? What will the Tamil nationalist parties representing the North -Eastern Tamils do? Above all, how will the Rajapaksa led SLPP respond to this? Finally what are the chances of the Wickremesinghe Wave-Ranil Ralla strategy succeeding? These questions will be delved into in greater detail in the fourth and final part of this article.
D.B.S.Jeyaraj can be reached at dbsjeyaraj@yahoo.com
විදේශ විනිමය මෙරටට අහිමි කරමින්, අධික විදුලි බිල හේතුවෙන් කර්මාන්ත ශාලා වැසී යන තත්වයක් නිර්මාණය කර විදුලි බල මණ්ඩලය ලබන ලාභයෙන් ඇති ප්රයෝජනය කුමක්දැයි පිවිතුරු හෙළ උරුමයේ නායක නීතිඥ උදය ගම්මන්පිල මහතා ප්රශ්න කරයි.
විදේශිකයින් සඳහා ගුවන්තොටුපළට පැමිණීමේදී වීසා නිකුත් කිරීමේ බලය විදේශීය පුද්ගලික සමාගමකට පැවරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් විරෝධය පළ කරමින් දේශහිතෛෂි ජාතික ව්යාපාරයේ මහ ලේකම් වෛද්ය වසන්ත බණ්ඩාර මහතාගේ අත්සනින් යුතුව ආගමන විගමන පාලකවරයා වෙත ලිපියක් යොමු කර ඇත.
