The Presidential Secretariat yesterday (12) handed over the remaining 22 volumes of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) report, hitherto declared sensitive and withheld from Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC.
The delivery of those volumes which dealt with some aspects of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage took place close on the heels of an unprecedented meeting between the Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith and the AG on March 8 at the Bishops’ House. In separate statements issued following the March 8 meeting, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Sri Lanka and the AG De Livera called for release of the report in its entirety.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa received the PCoI report on Feb 1, 2021.
Authoritative sources yesterday told The Island that there was absolutely no basis for claims that the PCoI advised the Presidential Secretariat not to release a section of the report. Sources emphasized that the PCoI had nothing to do with the move to deny the AG access to a set of volumes.
Supreme Court Judge Janak de Silva functioned as the Chairman of the PCoI. Other members of the PCoI are Court of Appeal Judge Nissanka Bandula Karunaratne, retired Supreme Court Judges Nihal Sunil Rajapaksha and A. L. Bandula Kumara Atapattu and former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice W. M. M. R. Adhikari. H. M. P. Buwaneka Herath functioned as the Secretary to the PCoI.
The AG has formed a 12-member team to examine the report.
In addition to the PCoI, the AG Department would examine the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) report on the Easter Sunday attacks.
The AG is on record as having said that the final report of the PCoI he received several days ago did not shed light on the Easter Sunday mastermind, conspirators and those involved directly and indirectly. The AG’s Department said that moving court was the prerogative of the department and it was not bound by the recommendations of the P CoI.
The parliament debated the PCoI report this week. The debate on the same is expected to be scheduled for two more days in the third week of this month.
Legal and political sources told The Island that the examination of the whole set of volumes was of utmost necessity against the backdrop of accusations and counter accusations over the alleged involvement of various political parties and individuals. Some of those named and referred to in the PCoI report are members of political parties represented in parliament and outside the House, sources said.
The advertisement on the sale of non slip doormats with the print of Sri Lanka’s national flag has been removed from the Amazon site after the Embassy of Sri Lanka in Beijing informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China on the matter.
The Embassy of Sri Lanka in Beijing had informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China and requested it to take action to stop the production of door mats and any such products, misusing the Sri Lanka flag.
The company which marketed the product on Amazon was requested by letter from the Embassy to immediately cease selling the door mats and any such products, misusing the Sri Lanka flag.
The Sri Lankan Embassy said it is closely monitoring this matter and will take appropriate action through the relevant authorities in China to stop the production and selling of any product with the image of Sri Lankan flag.
It is China’s consistent stand that the national flag is a country’s symbol that must be fully respected, the Chinese Embassy in Colombo stressed in a statement published on Friday (March 12).
Carpets and footwear displaying the Sri Lankan national flag had been made available for sale on Amazon, one of the world’s leading online consumer goods retailers.
The ‘Sri Lanka Flag Non-Slip Doormat’ had been priced at USD 12 close to Rs. 2,400, while the slippers made using the Sri Lankan national flag, were also on sale on several websites including Amazon.
Foreign Secretary Admiral (Retired) Prof. Jayanath Colombage had later informed the Embassy of Sri Lanka in Beijing to contact the manufacturer concerned in China.
In response, the Embassy said it is aware of some concerns about inappropriate advertising of Sri Lanka national flag on Amazon, which has been conveyed to the related Chinese authorities for investigation and necessary measures accordingly.”
It is also learned that thousands of similar products with flags of various nations, manufactured by sellers from different countries, are available on this global online retailer, for which Sri Lankan side is approaching the platform for direct action, the statement read further.
The Embassy would like to emphasize that as an all-weather friend and a closest partner, China has been respecting and supporting Sri Lankan for its peace, prosperity and dignity for decades, no matter in bilateral fields or international fora.”
Minister of Public Security Rear Admiral (Rtd) Sarath Weerasekara says he has signed the Cabinet paper banning the burqa in Sri Lanka.
His remarks came during an event held at Munasinghe Aramaya in Kalutara today (March 13).
Explaining the reason for the move, the Public Security Minister said the burqa directly affects the national security of the country.
We had a lot of Muslim friends when we were little. But Muslim females did not wear the burqa back then.”
Minister Weerasekara stressed that burqa is a symbol of religious extremism that came to Sri Lanka quite recently. So, it will definitely be banned.”
Speaking on the regulation of Madrasas, he said there are more than 2,000 such schools in the country.
Minister Weerasekara said: No one can arbitrarily open a school and teach the students whatever they want. All children aged from 5 – 16 years must study under a national education policy. We will take measures to ban more than 1,000 Madrasas which have not been registered under a national education framework.”
A man has been arrested by the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) for promoting Wahhabism and Jihadist ideology in the country.
As per reports, the arrest was made in the area of Dematagoda on Friday (March 12).
The suspect has been identified as Rasheed Hajjul Akbar who is a resident of Mawanella area, Police Spokesperson DIG Ajith Rohana said.
It was revealed that he had served as the chairman of Jamaat-e-Islami Organization for many years.
The 60-year-old is also a close relative of one of the suspects who was taken into custody over the Buddhist statue vandalism incident in Mawanella.
The TID plans to obtain a detention order on the suspect under the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act in order to carry out further investigations.
Secretary to the Ministry of Finance S.R. Attygalle has insisted that there is no such thing as revenue loss in a tax deduction scenario.
His remarks came during a media briefing convened earlier on Friday (March 12).
The import tax on sugar was reduced from Rs. 50 per kilogram to 25 cents last year and people are claiming there was a revenue loss to the tune of Rs. 15.9 billion, Mr. Attygalle added.
Some revenue will be, in a way, reduced because of this action. But we are looking at the bigger picture. So, in a tax deduction scenario, I don’t think revenue loss could be talked about. But if you do a simple arithmetic, somebody can say there is a revenue loss. But we don’t interpret it as a revenue loss. Then we can’t do any reduction.”
Mr. Attygalle added that the retail price of sugar was Rs. 135 when the tax levied on sugar was reduced to 25 cents.
He went on to explain: The tax-free or the CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight) price was Rs.72 and including taxes it was Rs. 121. Starting from October to December, the CIF price of Rs. 72 increased to Rs. 85. However, the sugar prices fell from Rs. 135 to Rs. 114. It was possible due to the tax reduction. The CIF value which was at Rs.72 before, now stands at Rs. 90. Had there not been a reduction, the price of sugar would have increased to nearly Rs. 175. The price of sugar today is Rs. 115 and people have received the benefits.”
Mr. Attygalle added that the newly amended tax concessions with the aim of boosting certain industries will be gazetted next week.
Another coronavirus infected death has been reported.
Accordingly, the total death toll has increased to 526. The deceased has been identified as a 48 year old female residing in the Kanaththewewa area.
She was transferred from the Kurunegala Teaching Hospital to the Homagama Base Hospital after being identified as Covid 19 infected. She died while receiving treatment yesterday.
The leading causes of death were acute bronchopneumonia and blood poisoning.
A South African variant of COVID-19 known as B.1.351 has been detected from a patient in a quarantine center in Sri Lanka for the first time, Director of the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine of Sri Jayewardenepura University, Dr. Chandima Jeewandara said.
Five more COVID-related fatalities have been reported in Sri Lanka, Director General of Health Services confirmed today (March 12).
The new development has pushed the death toll from the virus to 525.
According to the Government Information Department, four of the death were reported in Western Province while the remaining death was from Eastern Province.
One of the deceased is a 72-year-old female from Akkaraipattu in Eastern Province. She was transferred from Akkaraipattu Base Hospital to Mulleriyawa Base Hospital after being diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection. She passed away on Thursday (March 11) due to shock caused by blood poisoning, respiratory tract infection, COVID pneumonia and acute kidney infection.
A 75-year-old male from Moratuwa died on Thursday (March 11) while receiving treatment at Infectious Disease Hospital (IDH). He was initially under medical care at the Colombo South Teaching Hospital. The cause of death was cited as blood poisoning, COVID infection and acute kidney infection.
A 72-year-old female from Wattala area fell victim to blood poisoning, multiple organs dysfunction and COVID pneumonia on Thursday (March 11). She was moved to the IDH from Colombo North Teaching Hospital after testing positive for the virus.
Meanwhile, a 65-year-old male from Walpola in Ragama area died on Wednesday (March 10) due to COVID pneumonia and shock due to blood poisoning. He was under medical care at the Homagama Base Hospital at the time of his death. He had been transferred from Colombo National Hospital after testing positive for the virus.
The final victim is a 73-year-old male from Polgasowita area. After being diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection, he was moved to Homagama Base Hospital from Colombo South Teaching Hospital. The cause of death was reported as heart disease, acute kidney disease, COVID pneumonia and acute diabetes.
Hitler rose to power through the Nazi Party, an
organization he forged after returning as a wounded veteran from the
annihilating trench warfare of World War I. He and other patriotic Germans were
outraged and humiliated by the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which
the Allies compelled the new German government, the Weimar Republic, to accept
along with an obligation to pay $33 billion in war reparations. Germany also
had to give up its prized overseas colonies and surrender valued parcels of
home territory to France and Poland. The German army was radically downsized
and the nation forbidden to have submarines or an air force. We shall squeeze
the German lemon until the pips squeak!” explained one British official. The National World War 11 Museum, New Orleans.
Those who still
hold the view that Hitler did the Germans a lot of good probably remember the
above excerpt from the National World War 11 Museum, and not what is noted
below by the same entity.
Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of
Germany in 1933 following a series of electoral victories by the Nazi Party. He
ruled absolutely until his death by suicide in April 1945. Upon achieving
power, Hitler smashed the nation’s democratic institutions and transformed
Germany into a war state intent on conquering Europe for the benefit of the
so-called Aryan race. His invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, triggered
the European phase of World War II. During the course of the war, Nazi military
forces rounded up and executed 11 million victims they deemed inferior or
undesirable—life unworthy of life”—among them Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, and
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Reading through
many articles written on the heels of the UNHRC Core Group attempt to blackmail
Sri Lanka, and that is a word used by most writers, the opinion held by most
Sri Lankans appears to be that despite the viciousness and brutality of the
LTTE, and the thousands they killed, ordinary people, not just Sri Lankan or
Indian soldiers, and politicians both Sinhala,
Tamil and Muslim, and two Heads of State, and the gruesome practices
they employed like using animals as fodder for their land mine target prices,
it is the Sri Lankan government that is on the dock for defending its people
from these vicious monsters masquerading as freedom fighters.
No self-respecting
and decent Tamil could condone the atrocities committed by the LTTE in their
name, as they were not even remotely acceptable as what genuine freedom
fighters would engage in. It is unlikely that most Tamils condone the
activities of the LTTE, but perhaps are silent on them due to pressure exerted
on them by the power groups within the Diaspora, encouraged, supported and
funded by some countries, and their agents in Sri Lanka. This enforced silence
has contributed in a large measure to the inability of all communities to be
more trusting of each other, and to engage in confidence building activities.
In saying this,
Sri Lankan governments, past and present, religious leaders, civil society
leaders, and the people at large, cannot be excused for not giving the empathy
and the action that was needed when governments failed the Tamils, and in some
instances, Muslims.
The worst mass
scale pogrom conducted against the Tamil people in 1983, planned and executed
by sections of the then government, was never investigated fully, and no one
was brought to justice for that abhorrent crime against the Tamil people.
It took 21 years
for a Sri Lankan government, and finally, the one led by President Chandrika
Kumaratunga to extend a long overdue apology in 2004 to the Tamil people and
others who suffered on account of this horror that has blackened the name of
the so called Buddhist nation. It is
sickening that it took that long when it should have been done in 1983 itself. To
date, no enquiry has been held and no one held accountable for this gruesome
event, although many were and are aware that the planning and execution of that
event was led by a senior minister in the then government who was very close to
the then President himself.
So, while it is
a civic duty on the part of all Sri Lankans to defend itself against the
planned UNHRC action as it is not based on facts, and it is based on innuendo
and hearsay, and as it is being orchestrated to punish Sri Lanka for its
friendship with China, Sri Lankans cannot overlook and pretend that as a
country, its leaders and its people failed the Tamil people in 1983.
This goes for
the enquiries launched after the war against the LTTE, the reports submitted
and action begun in some cases, and nothing done in other cases. The LLRC
report, its action plan begun during the Mahinda Rajapaksa Presidency, then
aborted by the Sirisena/Wickramasinghe government in 2015, the Paranagama
report on Missing Persons, and its recommendations, again thwarted by Sirisena
and Wickramasinghe, does not give confidence to the Tamil people that Sri
Lankan governments are serious about addressing the trials and tribulations
faced by them.
Those of us who
are defending Sri Lanka’s right to defend itself against the bogus, self-serving
interests of the Core Group and its sponsor, the US, cannot and should not
pretend that the country has addressed the depravations heaped on the Tamil
people by governments elected by the people to safeguard all people, not a
section of them. Condemning the LTTE is one thing, but not condemning Sri Lankan
governments and its leaders for their inactivity is not another thing. It is
the same side of the coin, not the other side of the coin.
The Core Group
of the UNHRC, directed by the US and UK, and aided and abetted by pseudo human
rights champions like the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet who has
no clue of what happened in Sri Lanka and is relying on questionable ‘hearsay’
evidence” as a senior lawyer stated in an article published in the LankaWeb, are hell bent on punishing Sri Lanka for its
independence and defence of its sovereignty.
The duplicity
of these countries is clearly exposed when someone who was integral to the LTTE
and its monstrous activity, and who led thousands of innocent Tamil children to
slaughter, Adele Balasingham, roams free in the UK, protected by the UK. No
charges have been laid against her by them. One wonders how Adele Balasingham
sleeps in the night with such gruesome memories.
A person of
eminence like Lord Naseby is not given even a scant hearing by the British
government as he has chosen to see both sides of this issue and chosen to
defend Sri Lanka’s right to defend itself against vile terrorism, and against
highly inaccurate and exaggerated reports authored by people who had not even set
foot in Sri Lanka.
To make matters
worse, Sri Lanka also appears to be heading back into a Wolves den by calling
on India to help defeat the motion before the UNHRC. India, the one country
most responsible for the advent of Sri Lanka’s own Nazi party, the LTTE, and
which again stood in the way of arresting LTTE Leader Prabakaran in 1987, and
calling an end to a mindless war that then went on for another 21 years, is now
called upon to assist Sri Lanka. It is a black joke.
It is India
which violated Sri Lanka’s sovereignty by dropping food parcels without any
contact or reference or sanction from Sri Lanka in 1987. As mentioned in the
Wikipedia, STEVEN R. WEISMA, New York Times, in a report titled India airlifts aid to Tamil rebels stated that on 5 June 1987, the Indian Air Forceairdropped food parcels to Jaffna while it was under siege by Sri Lankan forces. At a time when the Sri Lankan
government stated they were close to defeating the LTTE, India dropped 25 tons
of food and medicine by parachute into areas held by the LTTE in a direct move
of support toward the rebels. Further, the Sri Lanka government accused
that not only food and medicine but weapons were also supplied to the LTTE”
Amateur foreign
affairs officials and even a government that freed the country from this Nazi
party and which should have learnt some lessons from the dark past, seems to be
living in a cuckoo land if they seriously think India will provide support
without extracting a huge price.
Sri Lanka’s
future is with other countries and other alliances. It is not with the US, UK,
and India. Their duplicity is surpassed only by their arrogance. Sri Lanka is
vulnerable to these countries because of its geographical position. For this
very reason, it should sign a defence pact with China, its friend, so that if
ever threatened by this duplicitous trio, China will come to Sri Lanka’s aid.
The time for pussyfooting is over, and talking nonsense like ‘we must be
neutral” is over. No country is neutral” in any sense of the word.
The price these
three countries will extract for Sri Lanka’s neutrality” will defeat the whole
idea of neutrality. Sri Lanka will be beholden to them forever. Sri Lanka can
be more neutral in reality by working with non-aligned countries and other
friendly nations.
The US tried
their best to intrude in Sri Lanka’s sovereignty through the MCC, ACSA and
SOFA. Some are of the opinion that these are still very much alive and their objectives
are being achieved by other means and with intrusive projects with other
acronyms. It is an open secret that India is very much part of this trio and
are doing their bidding surreptitiously and with cunningness that India is
noted for. Despite the risks, it is time to end this game of Poker and called
their bluff.
By Uditha Devapriya/Ceylon Today Courtesy NewsIn.Asia
Colombo, March 11: Partly in spite of and partly because of the political leadership, Sri Lanka never got to evolve a foreign policy of its own in the first ten years of its independent statehood. Scholars are divided on why exactly this was so, with some pointing at the indifference of the first two UNP regimes to the country’s external relations and others arguing there was no need for the country to think about external relations just yet.
However, it must be borne in mind that far from feigning indifference, the first two Prime Ministers – D. S. Senanayake and Dudley Senanayake – placed special emphasis on the issue of foreign policy in their opening addresses to the nation. One can argue that these statements lacked depth and solidity, and that they were couched in vague abstractions which were never translated into action. But this is different from saying that these governments didn’t think much about foreign policy.
An Occam’s razor explanation of the supposed indifference of these administrations would be that they did not have to bother about foreign policy, owing to a series of agreements in 1947 that brought Sri Lanka within British jurisdiction. Most accounts of the transfer of power that the Ceylon National Congress and the United National Party oversaw in that decade tend to oversimplify how foreign policy (along with defence) was handed over to Whitehall, with K. M. de Silva claiming it was a pragmatist pincer move against a perceived security threat from India. Even Shelton Kodikara, in his excellent book on Indo-Lanka relations, posits that these perceptions, entertained by the UNP, seemed real. Once we accept that premise, it becomes easy to legitimise the decision to relegate the country’s foreign affairs to Britain.
However, the truth was far more complicated than that, and ironically, it is to foreign historians, not local writers, that we must resort to here. James Manor’s study of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike (The Expedient Utopian, 1989) is more than just a biography of a Prime Minister; it is a sociological treatise on the colonial elite in Sri Lanka, indeed on how different that elite was to its counterparts in much of the Afro-Asian world. Of particular interest is its discussion of how the very character of this milieu had a hand in shaping the external relations of the country: a point seldom delved into, much less appreciated, by mainstream local historians.
Both K. M. de Silva and, to a lesser extent, Shelton Kodikara argue that statements made at various times by various Indian officials, diplomats, and leaders – even the great Nehru himself – pushed the country’s leaders to build a working relationship with Britain as far as defence and external relations went, even after independence. We know now that this is the reason the UNP trotted out to rationalise its decision to cede these twin matters to Whitehall, as evidenced by D. S. Senanayake’s claim (one he made repeatedly) that he could not think of the country’s interests as long as it did not have a standing army of its own. To the extent that his fears about aggression and intervention from abroad were moulded by the lack of a proper army, his decision to bandwagon with Britain can be viewed as a precautionary measure taken against the possibility of Indian interference.
I believe it was James Manor who first chose to depart from this reading of the 1947 Defence Agreement. Pointing to a colonial despatch (D. S. Senanayake to the Secretary of State, 28 February 1947, CO 882/30), Manor concluded that D. S. and the UNP were eager to show themselves to the British as their true heirs. Given that Britain desired governments friendly to it in its former colonies, the ruse worked sufficiently well to persuade colonial officials not just to opt for the UNP, but also prefer Senanayake to the other aspirant to the proverbial throne, Bandaranaike. They viewed the latter in a rather negative light, even if they saw him as a more suitable successor than the alternative to the UNP: the Marxist Left.
In his work on Indo-Lanka diplomacy Shelton Kodikara outlines three factors that influenced Sri Lanka’s immediate relations with the rest of the world: the Defence Agreement of 1947, the Soviet Union’s decision to veto the country’s attempt to enter the United Nations the following year, and the linkage between foreign and domestic politics. Regarding the latter point, Kodikara identifies the then regime’s antipathy to the Left as a major factor, yet he fails to place it in its proper historical context. Since he has not done so there, it is imperative that we try to do so here.
Nehru with D.S.Senanayake and other Ceylonese leaders Sir Baron Jayatilake, SWRD Bandarnaike and Dudley Senanayake: An uneasy relationship.
For the then government to have preferred the West over India owing to the Marxist opposition and the fact that the latter courted, and won, the Indian Tamil vote – a fact that, incidentally, compelled the D. S. Senanayake regime to disenfranchise vast swathes of the estate population with absolutely no regard for their civil liberties – its ideology would have had to be the direct opposite to that of the forces it contended, almost to the point of obsession, on the domestic and foreign policy front. It is this ideology, of the ruling party and elite, that neither Kodikara nor de Silva discusses. That, in my view, is an inexcusable omission.
Inexcusable, because no proper overview of the foreign policy of the first 10 years of the country’s post-independence period can be made without factoring in the way the leaders of the time thought, both amongst themselves and in opposition to forces the elite to which they belonged sought to combat. The late Vernon Mendis went as far as to justify the measures taken by these leaders against the Marxist opposition on the grounds that certain figures on the Left (such as S. A. Wickramasinghe) made statements that could, at one level, be construed as invitations to the Communist bloc to interfere in the country’s affairs. It is regrettable that an entire generation of diplomats interpreted these incidents while laying aside, or choosing to ignore, what obviously were flagrant violations of civil liberties committed by then government against the opposition. One can only say that most textbooks on foreign policy – excluding Kodikara’s book – tend to present a revisionist history, painting the Left in a negative light while choosing to ignore the reactionary ideology of the government. We need go beyond this.
As James Manor has shown us only too clearly, mainstream historians and even constitutional lawyers allied with the then government (like Ivor Jennings, to whom the disenfranchisement of the Indian Tamil population did not seem to constitute an aberration in a supposedly democratic polity) idealised the likes of John Kotelawala as strongmen, forgetting the state resources they utilised and the paramilitary groups they formed to keep what Judy Waters Pasqualge characterises as an imagined threat on the Left at bay. In Sri Lanka’s post-independence history only once did an elected leader sanction the burning of books and the deportation of an expatriate from the country, and that was Kotelawala, under whom Sri Lanka came close to siding with a Cold War power, almost as close as it would under J. R. Jayewardene.
The truth of the matter was that, as scions of a rightwing rentier elite, the colonial bourgeoisie in Sri Lanka differed in degree and substance from that of not just India, but also much of the rest of the Afro-Asian world, to such an extent that by 1948 they had come to prefer Dominion status to the prospect of what K. M. Panikkar, soon to be the Indian Ambassador to China, saw as a federation between India, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar. In later years, Jayewardene was to claim that it was the Soviet Union’s vetoes of Sri Lanka’s efforts to enter the UN that fuelled the government’s antipathy to the Communist bloc. While the distinction the D. S. and the Dudley governments drew between Stalinist Russia and Maoist China – by Sir Lalitha Rajapakse, Robert Senanayake, and D. S. himself – and the recognition Sri Lanka afforded to the latter in 1950 can be construed as evidence for this, it does not explain the tortuous route the 1951-1952 regime took to ink the Rubber-Rice Pact with Beijing and the efforts it made to distinguish between trade and diplomacy with the Iron Curtain, a distinction Kotelawala epitomised when he established trade links with Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania without opening as much as a single Embassy.
Simplistic explanations will thus not do if we are to historicise foreign policy. What do we need then? We need an account of foreign policy that cuts through the rhetoric of personalities, political parties, and political systems, and identifies why decisions were taken and policies were enacted. I may be overstating it when I say that none of the books and essays written on the subject, particularly on the period discussed in this piece, has, barring a few exceptions, presented a comprehensive overview of the way foreign policy came to be crafted in Sri Lanka.
But then such a statement is not wide of the mark. Ideology is an important internal determinant when it comes to foreign policy formulation, and yet historians, in their quest to absolve leaders from their own actions, indeed from history itself, appear to have failed to factor in and account for it. Hence we need an alternative history, one that can go a long way in helping us understand not just our past, but also our future.
Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is not in the best of shape. Understanding the past is a first step towards ameliorating that. A vital, and necessary, first step.
Colombo, March 11 (Economy Next): The People’s Bank of China has confirmed that a 1.5 billion dollar equivalent swap arrangement had been approved, State Minister for Capital Markets and Money, Nivard Cabraal said.
He said Sri Lanka could draw down the swap at any time but it will be kept as a buffer.
By P.K.Balachandran/counterpoint.lk Courtesy NewsIn.Asia
Colombo, March 11: With the date for voting on a resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) nearing, the scenario is grim. Diplomatic sources say that given the reality of international politics, the vote is most likely to go against Sri Lanka.
But Sri Lanka is unfazed by this prospect as it has taken a clear and resolute stand that the resolution is unacceptably intrusive, biased, selective in its choice of data, unethically equating a democratically elected government with a ruthless terrorist group, and is driven by ulterior motives.
On other hand, the Core Group led by the UK and backed by the US, is equally convinced that Sri Lanka has brazenly violated human rights and deserved to be investigated, admonished and proceeded against under universal jurisdiction.
Diplomatic sources believe that given the most likely line up at the time of voting, defeat stares in Sri Lanka’s face. India and Japan have not taken a decision and are watching the proceedings carefully to gauge the mood of the Council it appears. As on date, the dice is loaded against Sri Lanka, and the most likely decision by New Delhi and Tokyo would be abstain.
India has certain issues with Sri Lanka which had arisen in the recent past such as the one relating to the East Container Terminal. Sri Lanka had reneged from a bilateral agreement on it, without so much as a prior warning, leave alone prior consultation. However India did not raise any bilateral issue at the Council but spoke about the importance of implementing the 13 th.Amendment (13A) of the Sri Lankan constitution which is meant to devolve power to the provinces, especially to the Tamil speaking provinces in the North and East. This issue is about the larger question of democracy and ethnic reconciliation and not a narrow one relating to a bilateral project. Since there is no firm commitment yet from Colombo about implementing the 13 A and there is still talk of a dilution of devolution, India does not have the required incentive to vote for Sri Lanka.
However, since India has a great and enduring stake in Sri Lanka being its only neighbor, New Delhi will not oppose Sri Lanka outright but play it safe by remaining neutral. Japan has asked the Council to be more understanding and accommodative towards Sri Lanka, but Japan too has issues as in the case of the ECT in which it was to be a stakeholder. Thus, Tokyo could follow India and be neutral at voting time.
The Core Group’s revised draft (it is still being revised with inputs from the members of the Council) has made significant concessions to Sri Lanka. For example it does not directly demand the setting up of an international judicial mechanism to try war crimes allegations and other allegations of Human Rights during and after the war. But it prepares the ground for such a mechanism when it says that it: Recognizes the importance of preserving and analyzing evidence relating to violations and abuses of human rights in Sri Lanka with a view to advancing accountability and decides to strengthen the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to consolidate, analyze and preserve information and evidence and develop possible strategies for future accountability processes for gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law, to advocate for victims and survivors, and to support relevant judicial proceedings in Member States with competent jurisdiction.”
More broadly it says: it has serious concern over emerging trends over the past year, which represent clear early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including the accelerating militarization of civilian government functions, erosion of the independence of the judiciary and key institutions responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights, ongoing impunity and political obstruction of accountability for crimes and human rights violations in emblematic cases”, policies that adversely affect the right to freedom of religion or belief, surveillance and intimidation of civil society and shrinking democratic space, arbitrary detentions, allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman degrading treatment or punishment and sexual and gender based violence, and that these trends threaten to reverse the limited but important gains made in recent years and risk the recurrence of policies and practices that gave rise to the grave violations of the past.”
The Core Group called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure the prompt, thorough and impartial investigation and, if warranted, prosecution of all allegations of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law including for longstanding emblematic cases.”
It called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure the effective and independent functioning of the National Human Rights Commission, the Office on Missing Persons and the Office for Reparations; to protect civil society actors, to investigate any attacks and ensure a safe and enabling environment in which civil society can operate free from hindrance, insecurity and reprisals.”
It requests the Government of Sri Lanka to review the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and ensure that any legislation to combat terrorism complies with its international human rights and humanitarian law obligations.”
Finally, it requests the Office of the High Commissioner to enhance its monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including progress on reconciliation and accountability, and to present a written update to the Human Rights Council at its forty-ninth session, and a comprehensive report including further options for advancing accountability at its fifty-first session, both to be discussed in interactive dialogues.”
Sword of Damocles
Therefore, the UNHRC’s attempt will be to force Sri Lanka to proceed along the lines suggested by the Core Group even at the cost of its sovereignty and independence. Colombo will have to accept UN investigators again, as if the earlier reports of the Rapporteurs were not damaging enough. The Sword of Damocles will be hanging over Sri Lanka’s head constantly diverting its attention from its other tasks like economic development.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa believes that real ethnic reconciliation will be achieved only through equitable social, educational and economic development and not through judicial mechanisms and other accountability measures urged by the UNHRC. President Rajapaksa believes these will only foment ethnic animosities by raking up old issues without seeing the past in a correct and unbiased perspective.
Sri Lanka also believes that the Core Group is not motivated by a genuine concern for ethnic reconciliation in Sri Lanka but by a desire to use the issue to browbeat and dominate Sri Lanka and also use it in its fight against its rivals for geo-political domination.
Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena has more than once rejected the Core Group’s resolution, amended or otherwise, and has urged Council members to vote against it. The stage is set for voting. And as far as Sri Lanka is unconcerned, it cares little for the consequences backed as it is by China and Russia, both with a veto in the UN Security Council.
… directs IGP to probe four persons including Sara
Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, has informed the Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith that it is futile to proceed with the 2019 Easter Sunday case unless he receives access to all volumes of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) report, and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) completed its investigations into the attacks.
The AG met the Archbishop on Monday (8).
The meeting took place against the backdrop of the PCoI decision to deny the AG access to 22 volumes out of 87 on the basis that they contained sensitive information, the disclosure of which could be detrimental to national security.
Coordinating Officer to AG State Counsel Nishara Jayaratne yesterday revealed that the AG had told the Cardinal that as the final report received by him didn’t provide any specific information or evidence regarding the Easter Sunday mastermind, conspirators and those directly or indirectly involved, the need to examine all volumes was of pivotal importance.
The meeting led to an extraordinary gathering of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Sri Lanka the following day and public demand for the immediate releasing of what the P CoI called sensitive documents. The Island learns that each volume consists of approximately 600 pages.
State Counsel Jayaratne said that the AG had also instructed IGP C.D. Wickremaratne to investigate four persons, including Sara Jesmin, the wife of Katuwapitiya bomber Hastun. And the others referred to in the final report of the PCoI namely Abu Hind, Lukman Thalib and Abu Abdullah Rimzan.
In spite of claims that Sara Jesmin managed to flee the country and perhaps now living in India, the government hadn’t been able to trace her whereabouts.
The AG had assured the Cardinal that he would do everything possible to bring the proceedings to a successful conclusion. However, the success of the investigation and the subsequent legal proceedings very much depended on his department receiving access to all documents, he stressed.
The AG, in respect of the writ application filed by the Cardinal, has directed the IGP to conduct a thorough investigation into the importation of swords, daggers and similar weapons into the country before and after the Easter Sunday attacks.
State Counsel Jayaratne said that the AG had briefed the Cardinal on the status of ongoing investigations.
-Ibrahim brothers and several int’l orgs funded Thawheed Jamaath
-Save the Pearl” had provided legal assistance to Zahran and his group
-Wearing of the Burqa will be banned in public places.
-Eleven extremists organisations to be banned
The intelligence services have identified Naufer Moulavi as the mastermind behind the Easter Sunday terror attack while Ibrahim brothers and several international organisations have funded the Thawheed Jamaath to carry out the attack, Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekara said today.
He told Parliament that it was revealed that Naufer Moulavi, who was based in Qatar, had provoked Zahran and his followers to carry out the attack by brainwashing them.
He said it was also revealed that two Sri Lankan born Australian nationals Lukman Thalib and his son Lukman Thalib Ahmed had facilitated Zahran to meet four religious extremists in the Maldives.
The Minister said according to intelligence information, these extremists had met Zahran on several occasions from 2016 till the attacks took place and added that Lukman Thalib Ahmed had facilitated the meetings in Sri Lanka.
He said an international organisation called Save the Pearl” had provided legal assistance to Zahran and his group.
The Minister said 99 suspects have been arrested in Sri Lanka and 35 suspects overseas for directly and indirectly supporting the Easter Attack, under this Government.
He also said 54 Sri Lankan suspects have been arrested in five countries and added that 50 of them have been brought down to Sri Lanka. The other four will be brought back after legal procedures in those countries are completed,” he said.
The Minister said 35 suspects have been arrested in connection with the incident where 1,440 swords were brought to Sri Lanka from China. Cases have been filed against seven of them,” he said.
He said legal action would be taken against all those who were involved in the attack and added that several actions will be taken to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure national security in the country.
Wearing of the Burqa will be banned in public places. Eleven extremists organisations have been identified and steps will be taken to ban them. Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act will be amended in coordination with the Justice Ministry. Madrasas will be regulated,” he said. (Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardane)
Wahabbism and Quasi Courts should be banned in Sri Lanka as it is recommended by the report of the Presidential Commission which probed the Easter Sunday attacks, MP Venerable Rathana Thera told Parliament yesterday.
The Thera said those organisations which embrace Wahabbism, such as All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama should be probed and banned.
The PCOI probing the Easter Sunday attack has revealed that the Jamiyyathul Ulama Organisation had embraced Wahabbism,” the Thera said. All politicians and even Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith should support the move to ban Wahabbism and quasi Courts. Quasi Courts had prevented Sinhalese who had married Muslims to seek legal redress from normal courts,” he said. The Thera also opposed the recommendation made by the Presidential Commission to ban Bodu Bala Sena. No Sinhalese organisations staged violence in this country to date,” he said. (YOHAN PERERA)
SLMC Leader Rauff Hakeem and ACMC Leader Rishad Bathiudeen have been associated with the Easter Sunday attackers, Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage told Parliament yesterday.
Minister Aluthgamage said both Mr. Hakeeem and Mr. Bathiudeen visited those who were wounded in some incidents which took place prior to the Easter Sunday attacks.
Mr. Hakeem went to hospital to visit a member of Zahran’s group who was injured in an attack. Even Bathiudeen visited a person who was injured in an attack. Asath Sally got those who were arrested for the attack on the Mawanella Buddha statue, released. These are all allies of SJB,” he said.
SLMC leader had a electoral pact with Zahran in 2015,” he also said. Meanwhile State Minister Arundika Fernando said Archbishop of Colombo Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith should be patient until the Government identifies and punishes those who are responsible for the attack. (YOHAN PERERA AND AJITH SIRIWARDANA)
The Director General of Health Services has confirmed 05 more Covid-19 related deaths, increasing the death toll due to the virus in the country to 520.
01. The deceased is a 56-year-old female resident from Nawalapitiya. She was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 virus while undergoing treatments at District Hospital Nawalapitiya and transferred to Base Hospital Theldeniya and again to the District Hospital Nawalapitiya where she died on March 08. The cause of death is mentioned as pneumonia and Covid infection.
02. The deceased is a 63-year-old female resident from Angulana. She was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 while undergoing treatments at General Hospital Colombo and transferred to Base Hospital Mulleriyawa where she died on March 09. The cause of death is mentioned as blood poisoning shock, heart disease and Covid infection.
03. The deceased is an 80-year-old female resident from Maththegoda. She died on March 11 while undergoing treatments at Base Hospital Homagama. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid-19 pneumonia.
04. The deceased is a 67-year-old male resident from Bibila. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid 19 while undergoing treatments at Base Hospital Hambanthota and transferred to Base Hospital Homagama where he died on March 11. The cause of death is mentioned as pneumonia and Covid infection.
05. The deceased is a 68-year-old male resident from Dehiwala. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid 19 while undergoing treatments at Colombo South Teaching Hospital and transferred to IDH hospital where he died on March 11. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid-19 pneumonia.
Samagi Janabalavegaya MP Ashok Abeysinghe today expressed his regret before the CID over the statement made regarding the Easter attack.
After failing to appear on the two previous occasions when he was called, he was at the CID for nearly five hours providing statements today.
The Leader of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya and leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa, General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara and several others accompanied him.
After giving a statement before the CID, MP Ashok Abeysinghe stated that the case has now become a legal matter. Meanwhile hsi lawyer said that the video was edited.
Police Media Spokesman DIG Ajith Rohana expressed his views to the media this afternoon regarding the statements obtained from MP Ashok Abeysinghe. He stated that the MP could not present any facts to substantiate his statement.
The Police Media Spokesman also stated that he regretted the opinions that developed in this regard. He stated that further steps will be taken on the advice of the Attorney General.
Does the UNHRC have a mandate to judge international humanitarian law in an armed conflict?Sri Lanka’s conflict is defined as a non-international armed conflict where governing rules are IHL. Why is the UNHRC taking Sri Lanka to task based on human rights alone and that too human rights that are outside of the conflict. When the UNHRC attempts to cunningly use human rights over IHL, the Global South nations of the UNHRC must realize the dangers for their own countries by the intrusive resolutions being passed which in turn can be applied to their countries by the precedents being created. Why has Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry & Legal Advisors not demanded UNHRC or the international community stick IHL and bring forward allegations of violations with facts & evidence instead of plucking non-conflict related human rights issues which can easily be taken up at universal periodic reviews of UNHRC.
Human Rights Law is displaced by International Humanitarian Law during an Armed Conflict. This does not mean human rights law is invalidated within the zone of an armed conflict. What it does mean is that where rules of war are concerned the applicable laws are IHL which follow the maxim lex specialis derogate legi generali (where norms deal with the same subject, priority is given to the norm that is more specific – which is IHL and not IHR) Thus, lex specialis is humanitarian law. ICJ accepts this too. Human Rights Law is applicable in an armed conflict but it cannot conflict with IHL. Wherever there is a conflict, IHL prevails.
What are the LAWS applicable to a Non-International Armed Conflict?
LTTE recruitment of children as child soldiers –
LTTE violated fundamental rights of a child to education/violated Article 26 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights / Geneva Convention IV Article 50/ Additional Protocol I of 1977 Article 77(2) / Additional Protocol II of 1977 Article 4(3)(c) / Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 Article 38(3) /
LTTE violated Principle of Distinction (Rule 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Rule 1 LTTE had a civilian armed force & combatants fought in civilian clothing & herded civilians with purposeful intent to put civilian life at risk & as a defense.
Rule 2 LTTE fired at fleeing civilians and fired from among civilians
Rule 5 LTTE herded civilians with them knowing they were putting civilian lives at risk
Rule 6 LTTE did not protect civilians against attack and forced civilians to engage in hostilities by forcibly recruiting civilians and giving them short training & sending them to the war front (such civilians engaging in hostilities do not qualify to be classified as civilians as LTTE were using them as a military objective)
Rule 7 LTTE herded civilians into the safe zone demarcated for only civilians and fired from among civilians. LTTE even fired at civilians fleeing LTTE
Rule 8 LTTE fired from among civilians inside the safe zone which was not meant for LTTE. Sri Lanka Armed Forces had every right to return fire because LTTE was prohibited to fire from among civilians.
Rule 9 LTTE used civilians as objects
Rule 10 LTTE did not protect civilians against attack.
LTTE violated Principle of Indiscriminate attacks (Rule 11, 12, 13)
The safe zone was meant for civilians. It was not an official demarcation but the SL Armed Forces dropped leaflets in Tamil and spoke over loudspeakers advising civilians to seek shelter in the safe zone. Knowing this, LTTE committed a grave violation by not only entering the safe zone with the civilians but firing from among civilians putting civilians on the line of fire.
LTTE violated Principle of Proportionality in Attack (Rule 14-24)
Rule 14Sir Geoffrey Nice QC & Rodney Dixon QC international terrorist experts concluded in their report that applicable legal standards did allow Sri Lanka Armed Forces to attack the LTTE & its military locations. Under IHL civilian casualties are allowed though to precise number but requiring to be commensurate to the aim of defeating LTTE. Such an assessment should be by independent top-level military personnel (not NGO panelists like Sooka)
Not only did LTTE use civilians in hostilities, LTTE had a trained armed civilian force, it kept civilians as human shields and hostages and fired from among civilians. On 27 January 2009 US envoy Robert Blake publicly stated LTTE must immediately desist from firing heavy weapons from areas within or near civilian concentrations”. This clearly exposed LTTE.
Then there was the US cable with ICRC Head of Operations for South Asia, Jacques de Maio stating that ‘LTTE commanders objective was to keep the distinction between civilian and military assets blurred”
LTTE did not fire wearing uniforms further confounding distinction.
IHL requires parties not to target civilians but military objectives can be attacked.
In creating a safe zone and asking civilians to move into it – the Sri Lanka Army did its part to safeguard the civilians.
Rule 15– In joining the civilians inside the safe zone and firing from inside the safe zone – LTTE were violating the rule of IHL. Collateral damage is allowed. If by the statistics of dead which was below 8000 including LTTE, this loss is certainly acceptable considering Sri Lanka Armed Forces saved 300,000.
Rule 16The LTTE violated this principle that requires it to verify targets as military objectives – LTTE fired at fleeing civilians and killed them. No one knows how many civilians LTTE killed in this manner.
Rule 17LTTE violated this principle by not taking precautions to avoid, minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Rule18The Sri Lanka Armed Forces took every precaution to avoid incidental loss of life to civilians. However, LTTE broke all rules.
Rule 19Firing from among civilians knowing Sri Lanka Armed Forces had every right to return fire, by LTTE was with purposeful intent of putting civilians lives in jeopardy.
Rule 20LTTE violated this principle of not giving advance warning of attacks affecting civilian population because LTTE was firing from among civilians.
Rule 21Again LTTE was in violation of this principle as LTTE chose to fire from among civilians expecting the Armed Forces to return fire and thus cause civilian casualties.
Rule 22LTTE was in violation of this principle that required it to take all precautions to protect civilians under its control – LTTE was actually putting civilians in harms way and even firing at fleeing civilians.
Rule 23LTTE violated this principle that required it to avoid military objectives within or near densely populated areas – LTTE fired from inside the safe zone and LTTE fired from hospitals and schools keeping civilians with them
Rule 24LTTE did not remove civilians under its control from vicinity of military objectives – instead LTTE used civilians and kept them in the line of fire.
LTTE violated Principle of Protecting Special Persons & Objects – medical & religious (Rule 25-30)
Rule 25LTTE violated this principle by forcing doctors working in the hospitals to lie and give false figures
Rule 26 In all probability LTTE violated this principle too as the doctors working in the conflict zone were not allowed to follow medical ethics.
Rule 27This principle required religious personnel to be respected and protected – they however lose that protection if they commit anything outside their humanitarian function. It is good to evaluate the religious personnel who were with LTTE during the conflict & their conduct. No such religious persons were with the Sri Lanka Armed Forces.
Rule 28LTTE did not allow medical units to function as per their purpose.
Rule 29LTTE forced medical transports to be used for its advantage – even essentials sent for civilians were confiscated and given only to LTTE & their families.
Rule 30LTTE did attack UN convoys and even ship carrying medical and essentials to the conflict zone.
LTTE violated Principle of Humanitarian Relief Personnel & Objects (Rule 31-32)
Rule 31 LTTE did not respect humanitarian relief personnel nor protected them
Rule 32 LTTE was using hospitals and schools to nurse LTTE while the same venues were used for civilians while LTTE fired from these places
LTTE violated Principle of Personnel & Objects in Peace Keeping Mission (Rule 33)
Rule 33 – LTTE fired at convoys carrying relief, including ships
LTTE violated Principle of Journalists (Rule 34)
Rule 34 – there were no journalists with LTTE unless they were part of LTTE, while the journalists with the armed forces were given fullest protection by the troops
LTTE violated Principle of Protected Zones (Rule 35-37)
LTTE violated these principles
LTTE violated Principle of Cultural Property (Rule 38-41)
This violation occurred across the 3 decades of conflict, where LTTE stands guilty of attempting to destroy Sinhala Buddhist cultural heritage to secure their argument for an exclusive Tamil Eelam.
Principle of Works & Installations Containing Dangerous Forces (Rule 42)
Avoiding installations containing dangerous dams, dykes, nuclear etc to be avoided to prevent loss of civilian life.
This would need to be further investigated.
LTTE violated Principle of Natural Environment (Rule 43-44-45)
LTTE destroyed natural environment not only during the final phase of the conflict but throughout its terror rule. Imagine constructing a swimming pool in the middle of the Vanni jungles!
Principle of Special Methods of Warfare – No Quarter Given (Rule 46)
Meaning no survivors is regarded a war crime. The rule may be applicable where LTTE shot dead Tamils attempting to flee them which was a violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention guaranteeing prohibition of murder.
LTTE violated Principle of Attacking persons recognized as hors de combat (Rule 47)
LTTE violated this rule by not only attacking Tamil civilians some who were injured but also attacking injured soldiers/unarmed soldiers.
Principle of Attacking persons parachuting from aircraft in distress (Rule 48)
There are enough of instances that LTTE have violated this fundamental principle
LTTE violated Principle of destruction & seizure of property (Rule 50)
Enough of instances prevail where LTTE has seized property belonging to adversary
LTTE violated Principle of access to humanitarian relief (Rule 52-53-54-55-56)
This is an area that UNHRC has purposely omitted from investigation as the essential relief sent to the Tamil civilians were not only inflated in numbers but were confiscated to be given only to LTTE combatants & their families. That Tamil civilians were in starvation was apparent from interviews given by them revealing the manner essentials were stolen by LTTE and not given to them.
LTTE thus stands guilty of attempting to starve the civilian population which was a violation of Rule 53 Customary IHL.
LTTE also broke Rule 54 of attacking & rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of civilians
LTTE also broker Rule 55 as the humanitarian relief sent to civilians was denied to them
LTTE violated Rule 56 as civilians were denied freedom of movement to access the humanitarian relief sent to them.
LTTE violated Principle of International Humanitarian Law (Rule 57)
As is clear, LTTE violated all international humanitarian law –but the question is why were none of these taken up by the OISL or even UNHRC or those drafting resolutions against only the armed forces of Sri Lanka?
Principle of While Flag (Rule 58)
The military attaches of the UK and US embassies in their secret memos to their governments clearly have debunked the myths surrounding the white flag, another ruse unfairly used against Sri Lanka Armed Forces.
Principle of Improper use of Distinctive Geneva Emblems (Rule 59-60-61-62-63)
This would require to be further investigated
Principle of Concluding agreement to suspend combat with intent of surprise attack (Rule 64)
This would require to be further investigated
LTTE violated Principle of killing, injuring, capturing adversary for perfidy (Rule 65)
The best example of this was the killing of 600 policemen by LTTE, as they were asked to surrender and instead ended up being slaughtered one after the other. Enough of occasions, LTTE has violated this Rule.
Rule 66, 67, 68, 69 – cover Communication with the Enemy
Rule 70 – cover Principles on the use of weapons
Rule 72 – cover use of poison or poisoned weapons
Rule 73 – cover use of biological weapons
Rule 74 – cover use of chemical weapons
Rule 75 – cover use of riot-control agents
Rule 76 – cover use of herbicides as a method of warfare
Rule 77 – cover use of bullets which expand/flatten in the human body & is prohibited
Rule 78 – cover use of anti-personnel bullets which explode in human body & is prohibited
Rule 79 – cover use of weapons which are not detectable by x-ray in the human body
LTTE violated Principle of using booby-traps (Rule 80)
LTTE’s use of suicide human beings put civilian life in jeopardy when LTTE disguised as a civilian blew herself up at a civilian-refugee receiving centre killing scores of Tamil civilians and Army personnel
LTTE violated Principle of Landmines (Rule 81-82-83)
There are enough of examples of LTTE using landmines on civilians across 3 decades of terror.
The recently released video-footage of LTTE experimenting land mines using dogs was also shocking. This was the first time a terrorist organization was using animals for its terror experiments.
It must be noted that the Sri Lanka Armed Forces applied Rule 83 in ensuring the areas occupied by LTTE were free of landmines before settling people back to their homes. However the international community insisting that IDPs return home before such landmine checking makes any to wonder what the real intent was in their demand!
LTTE violated Principle of Incendiary Weapons (Rule 84-85)
LTTE took no care to protect civilians whom they herded to be used as human shields and hostages and even shot at them for trying to flee. These civilians were even used to engage in hostilities and many would have lost their lives as a result. However, LTTE must be faulted for violating of this Rule of IHL.
LTTE violated Principle of using blinding laser weapons (Rule 86)
this would need to be further investigated
LTTE violated Principle of Treating civilians & injured persons (Rule 87-88)
LTTE has violated this fundamental Rule as civilians were used in hostilities, given only basic training and injured combatants were put into buses and these were blown up. How many combatants LTTE killed in this manner is not known and UNHRC is obviously not interested to find out.
Children as young as 7 years were taken as child soldiers – how many such children met their sad death is also not known.
The elderly were also handed guns & ordered to shoot – how many such died engaging in hostilities is also unknown.
However, none of these deaths qualify as civilian deaths if they were engaged in hostilities.
LTTE violated Principle of Murder (Rule 89)
LTTE not only murdered fleeing Tamil civilians, LTTE also murdered injured LTTE combatants
LTTE violated Principle of Torture, Inhuman treatment (Rule 90)
The manner that children & elderly were forced to take up arms and fight has to be condemned as an act of torture and inhuman treatment and degradation. Why is the UNHRC and international community silent about this?
LTTE violated Principle of Corporal Punishment (Rule 91)
How many LTTE combatants, child soldiers did LTTE punish for not following orders and injuring them for life?
Why doesn’t the UNHRC investigate into this?
Principle of mutilation, medical/scientific experiments (Rule 92)
Principle of rape & sexual violence (Rule 93)
There are allegations that LTTE female combatants to sexual misadventure by LTTE male combatants and this has been hushed up without investigation.
LTTE violated Principle of Slavery (Rule 94-95)
LTTE forced combatants to dig the bund that was to protect LTTE from the Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Throughout LTTE rule, whether LTTE combatants were paid or were looked after is unknown.
It’s surprising that the OISL and UNHRC never raised this too.
LTTE violated Principle of Taking hostages /human shields(Rule 96-97)
This was a very clearly violated principle by LTTE having herded almost 300,000 people to be used as hostages and human shields and was the reason for collateral damage of civilian lives. Again why OISL, UNHRC or the international community ignore this important Geneva Convention violation is baffling.
LTTE violated Principle of Enforced Disappearances (Rule 98)
Both LTTE and the Sri Lanka Armed Forces are accused of this violation & require to be investigated with facts and evidence.
LTTE violated Principle of Arbitrary deprivation of liberty (Rule 99)
By denying Tamil civilians their right to seek shelter and safety, LTTE violated this principle. Again why UNHRC and IC are not bothered about these violations is also baffling.
Principle of fair trial (Rule 100-101)
The kangaroo court that the UNHRC is advocating, based on hearsay from LTTE remnants living overseas and parroted by NGO heads on payroll is being used to put a national army on trial without presenting facts & figures with evidence. The People of Sri Lanka stand up in unison against this blatant violation of Customary IHL.
Rule 101 declares that no one can be accused or convicted of a criminal offence or an act of omissionwhich did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law – therefore, it is wrong for the UNHRC to judge the national army of Sri Lanka on hearsay only.
Rule 102 – declares that no one may be convicted of an offence except on basis of individual criminal responsibility– the allegation of 40,000 killed comes with no proof of names, dead bodies or even skeletons but the UNHRC wants an entire army to be declared war criminals
Rule 103 – declares collective punishment as prohibited
This is exactly what the kangaroo court of UNHRC via its resolutions is aiming at.
Rule 104 – convictions and religious practices of civilians and injured must be respected
LTTE violated Principle of respecting Family Life (Rule 105)
LTTE violated this by kidnapping even children – breaking up homes, denying fundamental rights to education for children, freedom of movement or even peace of mind to Tamils
LTTE violated Principle of Combatants & Prisoners of War (Rule 106-107-108)
Prisoner of War status is only applicable to International Armed Conflicts not NIAC
Rule 106 requires combatants to distinguish themselves from civilians – LTTE violated this fundamental rule. LTTE fought in civilian clothing and LTTE had a civilian trained unit. None of these fighters can claim to be a civilian if shot at.
LTTE violated Principle of wounded, sick, shipwrecked (Rule 109-110-111)
LTTE attacked ships carrying essential items for civilians. LTTE sent its sea tigers to attack such vessels carrying relief. LTTE even sent a suicide bomber to a relief centre accepting IDPs many of whom were elderly and injured.
LTTE violated Principle of evacuating dead (Rule 112-113-114-115-116)
LTTE attempted to destroy evidence of its combatants by blowing them up while living
Enough of LTTE video footage show how inhumanely LTTE treated dead Sri Lanka Army soldiers.
LTTE violated Principle of Missing Persons (Rule 117)
LTTE and LTTE fronts are claiming 40,000 dead/missing but is unable to provide even the names of the supposed dead, or even family members of the supposed dead.
LTTE violated Principle of Depriving Liberty (Rule 118-119-120-121-122-123)
LTTE denied Tamil civilians food, water, clothing, shelter and medical attention. It is mind boggling that the OISL and UNHRC ignore this fact revealed even by the IDPs.
LTTE also denied women their right to liberty by forcefully turning them into fighters
LTTE denied children their right to liberty by turning them into child soldiers and even training them to commit suicide by biting cyanide capsule.
Rule 121 requires Tamil civilians to have been kept separate from the combat zone – LTTE actually herded them as hostages and human shields and denied them basic health & hygiene.
Rule 122 required LTTE to refrain from pillage of personal belongings – LTTE stole house, property and lands of Tamils including writing their deeds in LTTE names. These need proper investigation.
LTTE violated Principle of Non-International Armed Conflict (Rule 124)
ICRC was in the conflict zone throughout and ICRC communiques reveal in detail their role.
But, on many occasions ICRC was not allowed by LTTE to inspect
Rule 125 – persons deprived of liberty allowed to correspond with families – LTTE did not allow such
Rule 126 – An allegation against the Sri Lanka Armed Forces is that civilian IDPs were held in internment camps and not allowed out and did not have access to relations. This was not true and can be proven with facts. The initial stages no one was allowed out until screening process was complete as well as the clearance of land mines etc.
Rule 127– Personal convictions/religious practices respected – the IDP centres all catered for this
Rule 128– No sooner that it was safe for the IDPs to return to their homes, they were released. Within months of the conflict ending, IDPs were able to return to their homes or to relations. World IDPs that run into millions are still to return home!
Rule 129– In a NIAC, the GoSL had every right to put up IDPs in centres to protect them from the conflict until such time alternatives were prepared for their return. The security and safety of the civilians were taking into account
Rule 130– applies to only IAC
Rule 131– The GoSL took every measure to provide the basic facilities to the IDPs and these were inspected by the ICRC and the UN officials arriving. All of them praised the efforts in Sri Lanka but returning to Geneva years later, they tell a different story. Wonder why?
Rule 132– Displaced have a right to voluntary return to homes – this was allowed once land mining was cleared
Rule 133– Property rights of displaced. It is important to note here that simply claiming entitlement to a land area without proof and carrying out media campaigns is not the best way to claim land. But this is the path being opted unfairly.
LTTE violated Principle of Special protection for needs of women (Rule 134)
LTTE used women even grandmothers when fighters were in want. Where’s UNHRC about women’s rights?
LTTE violated Principle of Children entitled to special respect & protection (Rule 135-136-137)
LTTE violated this principle by having an entire unit of child soldiers trained to kill. Where was UNHRC?
LTTE broke Rule 136 in recruiting children – what did UNHRC do about this?
LTTE broke Rule 137 in putting children to engage in hostilities – what did the UN do about this? 1/3 of LTTE comprised child soldiers
LTTE violated Principle of elderly / disabled and infirm given protection (Rule 138)
LTTE violated this Rule by putting the elderly in harms way, not feeding the elderly, not allowing the elderly to leave, and even engaging elderly in armed hostilities.
LTTE violated Principle of Compliance with IHL (Rule 139-140-141-142-143)
LTTE may be a terrorist organization. LTTE may not sign conventions or treaties. But LTTE was bound to comply with international humanitarian laws. LTTE flouted all of these Rules.
It is questionable why Sri Lanka’s legal advisors did not take the violations of IHL and the requirement to be judged by violations of IHL to argue one’s case against the bogus charges being cooked up by NGO’s lobbied by LTTE fronts.
Rule 143 requires teaching of IHL to civilians and this must be included as a special subject in Sri Lanka.
Rule 144 – requires States must not encourage violations of IHL
Rule 145 -146-147 – applicable to IAC
Rule 148 – Parties in a Non-International Armed Conflict cannot resort to belligerent reprisals.
Rule 149 – A State is responsible for violations of IHL whether state or non-state. If a State is responsible, then the State is permitted to take action to ensure IHL is not violated. In so doing, Sri Lanka cannot be found fault with.
Rule 150 – State is responsible for violations of IHL to make full reparations for loss or injury
Rule 151 – Individuals are criminally responsible for war crimes they commit. Therefore the question is why have LTTE combatants not been charged?
Rule 152 – Commanders and other superiors are criminally responsible for war crimes committed pursuant to their orders.This has to be proved with facts & evidence, not on hearsay by LTTE runaways and their NGO heads!
Rule 153 – Commanders & superiors are criminally responsible for war crimes committed by subordinates if they knew, or had reason to know that these were to be committed and no action was taken to prevent such.
Rule 154 – Combatants can disobey a manifestly unlawful order
Rule 155 – Obeying superior order does not relieve subordinate of criminal responsibility if subordinate knew act ordered was unlawful.
Rule 156 – Serious violations of IHL constitute war crimes
Rule 157 – States have right to vest universal jurisdiction in national courts over war crimes
Rule 158 – States must investigate war crimes committed by nationals or armed forces on their territory and prosecute suspects – evidence must prevail
Rule 159 – at end of hostilities authorities must grant broadest possible amnesty in a NIAC – the GoSL gave a presidential pardon to 594 child soldiers of LTTE treating them as victims.
Rule 160 – Statutes of limitation may not apply to war crimes
Rule 161 – States must make every effort to facilitate investigation of war crimes and prosecution of suspects. The problem we have is that we do not wish to have UNHRC create kangaroo courts where the national army are given retributive justice while LTTE terrorists are given restorative justice.
Why does Sri Lanka not demand the UNHRC to present with facts& evidence Sri Lanka’s violations of IHL during the final phase of the conflict instead of meekly accepting the cooked up human rights allegations most of which do not even cover the conflict but are seeking war crimes charges quoting the final phase of the conflict.
Sri
Lankan Catholics, led by His Eminence Malcom Cardinal Ranjith, Bishop of
Colombo, marked Black Sunday on March 7, with the participation of
representatives from Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious
communities, demanding justice for the victims of the Easter Sunday suicide
bomb attacks carried out by local Islamist Jihadists two years ago. The
Archbishop threatened further activism including asking for international help
unless there emerge sure signs before April 21 that the real masterminds behind
the horrendous crime are clearly identified and duly punished so that no
repetition of the like will occur in the future. The event was immediately
provoked by what was perceived by them and members of the opposition as well as
some law-makers of the ruling alliance, and sections of the civil society, as
foot-dragging by the government over punishing the guilty.
That
questionable perception was prompted by the president’s appointment on February
19 of a six-member ministerial committee to study the Final Report of the
Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Easter Sunday Attacks which had been
presented to him nearly three weeks before, and also the report submitted
to parliament by the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security, which
was also appointed by the previous government in the wake of the April 21, 2019
suicide bomb attacks. The SOC report, after about one year’s sittings, was
presented to the yahapalana parliament in February, 2020, just eleven
days ahead of the dissolution of parliament. Its recommendations were also
meant to prevent the recurrence of extremist violence.
I,
for one, do not question the appropriateness of the president’s move; it must
be part of the proper procedure he has chosen to deal with the matter.
Considering the dismal history of commissions of inquiry in our country, which
a past left politician in parliament once likened to a ‘loo visit’ – sitting,
deliberating, reporting and dropping the matter- , what is at present happening
under President Gotabaya is quite efficient and quick. Significant initial
progress has already been made under the new administration although people are
not still aware of it. Those who are waiting to fault the government on the
slightest pretext jumped to conclusions when it was revealed that 22 out of the
87 books (with a total of 69,770 pages according to Minister Wimal Weerawansa)
each of an average length of 800 pages were being withheld for security
reasons. True, this was something unexpected. The alleged decision to keep the
information contained in the 22 books even from the attorney general sounded
absurd, but most probably it was a temporary decision. Generally though, as
Minister Udaya Gammanpila explained in a separate context, certain confidential
pieces of information provided to the Commission by private witnesses, such as
what some Muslim women told it in camera about their husbands’ criminal
dealings with Islamic terrorists, have to be kept under wraps for the safety of
those individuals. Such unavoidable censorship will not prevent that
information from being made available for the prosecutors when the hearings
against the suspects actually start. Anti-government detractors, especially the
members of the yahapalana regime who intentionally or unintentionally
facilitated the April 21 attacks, are doing their damnedest to propagate the
false claim that this (probably temporary) secrecy imposed on a part of the
information recorded by the PCoI is meant to conceal the present government’s
culpability. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is utterly wrong to
suggest that the Easter Sunday attacks alone overwhelmingly contributed to
Gotabaya’s election or the success of the SLPP at the subsequent parliamentary
polls, for the SLPP swept the island-wide local government elections in
February 2018, that is, more than a year before the Islamist terror attacks.
The
ministerial committee is required to hand over its report on or before March
15. Committee member Minister Prasanna Ranatunga said yesterday (March 8) that
the report will be submitted on March 15, as scheduled. The PCoI was appointed
by (previous) president Sirisena in September, 2019, and its term was extended
several times by incumbent president Gotabaya without introducing any change to
the composition of its membership. In fact, the president was reported to have
personally asked the Cardinal whether he would like to see the composition of
the committee changed; the latter had answered in the negative. It is not
likely that the unacceptable practice of interfering with the judiciary or in
due legal processes for which the previous yahapalanaya was severely criticised
and was made to pay a heavy price in the form of a humiliating electoral defeat
would be repeated by the present government, least of all by Gotabaya, given
his immaculate professional record and his impeccable personal probity.
(Incidentally, something I frequently observed in Gotabaya’s campaign speeches
in Sinhala was his studied avoidance of noncommittal promissory statements
containing {First Person Singular} verbs ending in the suffix -nnam, e.g.,
karannam {I shall/will do}; he always used the present affirmative forms like
‘mama karanawa’ ‘I do’ instead of the future optative ‘karannam’ {I’ll do}
form; ‘karanawa’ expresses a solemn pledge, not a casual promise.
Gotabaya has already amply proved that he is a man of his word, just as much as
he is a man of action.) Meanwhile it is unlikely that the Cardinal has lost his
trust in the president, who had repeatedly reassured him that the culprits
won’t be allowed to go free, though the former has found it fit to observe a
Black Sunday. That must be to provide a shot in the arm for the president and
the government to reaffirm their commitment and renew their resolve for
expediting the commencement of due processes for ultimately meting out justice
to all affected persons; but that kind of coaxing is redundant, in my
opinion.
A
day before the Black Sunday was marked (i.e., Saturday 6), the president held
the 13th session of his ‘Gama Samaga Pilisandara’ ‘Conversation with the
Country’ programme with the people of the village of Giribawe, Weragala, in
Kurunegala. He had a copy of the Final Report (probably, a summary, still
massive) and spoke turning its pages, which showed that he had a good idea of
its contents. He explained to the people that he got the report on February 1,
and that the commission was appointed by the previous president. President
Gotabaya pointed out that the Report clearly blames the attacks on the
(Yahapalana) government. It identifies governmental inefficiency as the
principal contributory factor that led to the Easter Sunday attacks. He
stressed the fact that the Report apportions blame not only to former president
Sirisena and the ex-premier (Ranil), but also to the ‘rajaya’ or the government
(that they headed). President Gotabaya laid emphasis on the word ‘rajaya’ (government)
from the Report in this context.
‘But
today’, he added, ‘those who were in that government speak as if they weren’t
in it. During president Mahinda Rajapaksa’s time, we gave priority to state
security……This report makes it abundantly clear that a situation like this
resulted from the discontinuance of that security framework. We completely
reject the absurd, baseless allegation that our government must be held
responsible for the Easter attacks……The Report has recorded who is
accountable for them. It is, however, our responsibility to see them punished,
because we are the government now. We will properly execute that (duty). We
have not only this report, but also (reports from) the CID, the TID, and
intelligence sectors. Since we came to power, we have apprehended many other
new suspects. We are continuing (with this process). Punishments will be meted
out to these people and those..’
My
feeling, for what it is worth, is that the president and the government must be
allowed time and freedom to deal with the burning issues in the current
unprecedentedly critical circumstances. A local, Sri Lanka bashing,
propagandist tabloid has started calling the president ‘Nandasena’ (from his
full name ‘Gotabaya Nandasena Rajapaksa’). This is clearly meant to be
derogatory, for it acoustically links him with his failed predecessor Sirisena,
who in actuality, through his ungrateful 2014-November betrayal of his elder
brother the then president Mahinda, has brought endless disaster to the
country. Such inimical portrayal of president Gotabaya as a failure is wrong.
(It is tragic that some prominent monks who helped bring Gotabaya to power,
have now been duped to look away from him in apparent disillusion and defend
Sirisena instead who is being justly threatened with possible prosecution in
connection with the Easter attacks). With a little hindsight Gotabaya
supporters may draw fresh inspiration.
The
newly elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa handled with aplomb the sham kidnap
episode which had been staged courtesy the Swiss embassy in Colombo on November
25, 2019 and which had certainly been meant to embarrass and undermine him
internationally. The alleged abduction and rape of a local female employee of
the embassy by the unusual name of Gania Banister Francis was soon revealed by
the police to have been a gimmick set up by some anti-Sri Lanka-politics driven
hirelings. Having been elected president without a burdensome backpack of a
professional political background, he was able to adopt a confident, unperturbed,
and matter-of-fact approach to get at the truth, and suitably dispose of the
filthy stuff. The naive embassy officials who had been knowingly or unknowingly
taken for a ride by the plotters of the prank had egg on their faces; but the
president treated them with the respect and dignity that their posts deserved,
without any rancour. He even offered them a piece of friendly advice about the
importance of guarding against being misled by fabrications of liars against
the country (or something to that effect).
Currently
a worse, more damaging, drama is being acted out by the powers that be
centering on the release of the Final Report of the Presidential Commission of
Inquiry on the Easter Sunday Attacks. This must be intended to bamboozle the
SLPP government under Gotabaya’s presidency to veer off its course into
floundering in the stormy seas of geopolitics. This time however, the issue
that is to be tackled is not so straightforward as the silly embassy skit. It
will need Gotabaya’s hard-nosed practical approach as well as a seasoned
politician’s pragmatism. Unfortunately, according to my lights, at present,
Gotabaya is not getting the undivided support of those who are closest to him,
but who are apparently pulling in different directions, though their loyalty
may be unquestioned; this is an unacknowledged dichotomy in the
government’s inner circle, which is good for his and the country’s enemies.
This must be remedied immediately.
This
unnecessary division of opinion or lack of unanimity has significantly stymied
the resolution of a range of issues including the trivial burial problem
fraudulently blown into international proportions by Jihadist apologists and
others illdisposed towards the country and the present government. How the
government ignominiously embarrassed itself through needlessly bungling the
issue is now common knowledge. Mandatory cremation of Covid-19 dead was a sound
scientific decision. It was just yesterday (March 8) that 9NEWS, the
national news service of the Nine Network in Australia, reported Deputy Chief
Health Officer Dr Chris Lease revealing at a press conference held the day
before (March 7) that a ‘very strong positive’ COVID-19 sample had been
detected in Adelaide’s wastewater and that in response to this South Australia
had been put on coronavirus alert. Doesn’t this suggest that Sri Lankan
experts’ initial caution regarding possible contamination of groundwater was
correct and still remains valid? Mandatory cremation (condemned as ‘forced
cremation’ by vested interests) was not politically motivated to hurt the
feelings of a particular religious community.
The
ad hoc use of plots of land on the edge of environmentally sensitive forest
reserves for rural poverty alleviation in these hard times is a process that must
be strictly supervised by state officials and utilized by a properly informed,
responsible civilian population with the least environmental impact. This need
not be a basis for attacks on the government. Of course, it is absolutely
necessary to protect the forest reserves from endless encroachments in the
future by unscrupulous elements. It is the authorities’ responsibility to turn
the local beneficiaries of the concession into committed environment
protectors. This can be done by injecting into them a dose of patriotism.
Issues relating to the development of important sea ports with or without
foreign collaboration, and the findings and recommendations of various
commissions of inquiry appointed to look into bank scams, political
victimizations, and the Easter Sunday attacks of April 21, 2019, etc., should
be dealt with as national issues that should not be politicised or mishandled
inviting detrimental foreign intervention in our domestic
affairs.
Sarath Wijesinghe President’s counsel, former Ambassador to UAE and Israel, President Ambassador’s forum
Covid 19 spreads worldwide as a world wildfire
Covid19 is spreading worldwide affecting billions as a major pandemic changing the world drastically with the slowdown in economies, developments, living conditions, and all kinds of day to day and permanent lifestyles of all with downturns in all areas in life with drastic effects and limited solutions. Lot is discussed on the origin and the current situation monitored by WHO as the leader and guide to the world in monitoring and providing information to governments and the public. Governments are shaken and giving top priority to the pandemics that have taken hundreds of millions of lives of world citizens worldwide. The death toll is large and fluctuating at an alarming rate in rich-poor and powerful nation’s mercilessly taking lives of world citizens at the wish and will of the pandemic dragon spreading tentacles worldwide through boarder in various ways despite protective measures adopted. The virus is spreading faster with variants adapting to different environments. Citizen is advised to take precautions by WHO and governments taking measures for new vaccines for protection and end the disaster with little or no side effects. There are now several vaccines in use.175.3 million have been administered with 7 different kinds of vaccines approved by WHO and respective governments. Oxford, Pfizer, and vaccines created by Russia, China, India, the USA, UK and other member nations are being introduced and tested still in formative stages. It looks as the vaccine is working in the UK based on information received on deaths reduced number of patients but it takes time to find the side effects and complications. There is a change in Sri Lanka too on vaccination and we look forward to it for a speedy recovery of our economy and lifestyle. In many countries including the USA vaccine has answered with slow progress depending on the conduct of the citizen. The vaccine alone is not the answer that all guidelines need to be followed continually. It is proved that the best is to be careful and follow the guidelines of the WHO and Sri Lanka health guidelines. No permanent solution is nearby and the world is living on hopes subject to experiments for a new world with horrifying unprecedented deaths all over the world. It is proved that the strategy should be worldwide and not in isolation confined to countries as the pandemic spreads fast due to developed world with modern physical movements and complicated interconnected lifestyle. It is a world affair and the treatment should be worldwide and simultaneous. Time has come to make life simple, plain and properly programmed, and to be broad not being selfish. Covid 19 has taught bitter but lifelong lessons to be civic conscious and magnanimous towards the world, and what is permanent in the world is sheer impermanence as Lord Buddha has taught.
Pandemic has changed the world
Pandemic has changed the world and life style to work home and embrace
digitalization out of compulsion in all areas of life including education where
students in rural areas students climbed water tanks for WIFI and villager used
what’s app to pay bills with the help of young students in the family using the
mobiles of 110% penetration and computer centres in every corner. Families have
come closer due to compulsion to be indoors, new ideas and innovations are
emerging to meet challenges. Despite the disaster there is a silver lining
emerging to be innovative, digitalize and modern to keep the pace with the
changing world. Life is changing all over. Transport is less and telecomm
nation is used in advanced modes as in modern innovating nations telecomm
nation is giving top priority. We were on the door steps on digitalization and
now fast entering into the era of digitisation out of compulsion. Education
Health, Economy, agriculture, will be modern and revolutionized. There will be
international platforms on trade and commerce with modern and international
trends and expenses on date will be curtained due to competition. These things
are happening and the citizen/consumer appear to be adoptable and intelligent
to embrace changes.
Vaccine Diplomacy/Diplomacy/Priority is Pandemic and not Geneva
Diplomacy is influencing the decisions of the foreign governments by
peaceful means short of war and disputes. On diplomatic means sovereign states
settle disputes by dialogue negotiations discussions and other measures short
of violence. Modern diplomacy emerged from Europe in the 20 th century, with the
emergence of league of Nations as a world group and United Nations with the UN
Convention. It involves summoning meetings conferences which also deals with
international relations. Diplomacy deals with and among sovereign countries and
main outlets known as Embassies in countries with diplomatic relations. Sri
Lanka maintains Missions worldwide
expecting to promote the image of the Nation and to promote business and trade
as now counties are giving priority to Economic Diplomacy. Whether Sri Lanka
have quality and committed diplomats capable of promoting the image and trade
and business is a moot issue considering the quality of diplomats compared to
the counterparts. Ambassadors must be skilled in diplomacy, language, and
friendly and human behaviour to deal with expert diplomats in other counters.
Geneva a group of misguided nations are finding fault of few countries on
violations of human rights which are outdated and not practical. It is time for
the world to be united and work together to eradicate pandemic and emerge
victorious in the interest of the needy human worldwide undergoing sufferings.
Danger and fear on the pandemic is the best play ground for the eradication of
the dangerous pandemic dragon for ever.
Diplomacy and International relations in Sri Lanka and Asia
International relations and diplomacy in Sri Lanka and Asia runs back to
247 AD when King Asoka a Myrun” Emperor sent his son Arath Mahinda” and
daughter Mahni Sangamitta” to Sri Lanka as Emissaries of the King and India
to his unseen close friend with the message of Lord Buddha to propagate Buddhism in Sri Lanka when connections
reactivated after the era of Rama and Ravana five thousands of years ago. Friendship with Sri Lanka and
India continued with some stormy periods of Chola” and Pandi” invasions.
Relations with India was on the peak during Madam Bandaraneike which deteriorated
during JR Jayawardena era with disputes with Rajive on 13th
Amendment but the bond with two countries are ever cemented with the bond of
Buddhism originated in India. India is firm on towards India Policy” and the
disputed issues on economic front were brewing on Oil farm, Port, Harbour, Trincomalee
harbour, Chinese influence, 13th Amendment, Geneva Process and many
similar matters to be settled by diplomatic means. India promptly offered
vaccine to Sri Lanka as a friendly gesture when both countries are in
difficulties. Sri Lanka was ever grateful for the great gesture and the prompt
steps taken by India by giving the vaccines when Sri Lanka needed it badly and
results are now showing with reduced number of cases. It was timely and showed
the advanced stages of diplomatic skills of the world famous Indian diplomacy
which has won the world over. All the leading nations and the world community
is together in helping the world In USA US aid is in the forefront in helping
the world where as Russia has developed a vaccine and planning to offer to the
less fortunate countries economically. China has offered 20.5 billion dollars
and engaged in research to invent a vaccine to compete the pandemic. We expect
the diplomacy to flourish worldwide until the pandemic is eradicated.
Way forward in the new World Order
It may be that we may be in a new world full of kindness, passion,
loving kindness having realized the impermanent nature of the life and the
suffering of the patients and the loved ones. Whole world lives on hopes and
full of uncertainty on the future with less hopes of a permanent solution at
sight with full of predictions and promises. Entire world is in a mess and in
the verge if destruction due to massive environmental destructions and
disasters which has led to Covid 19 to this magnitude. Powerful rich countries
are the most hit due to excessive developments and leading an artificial life
unlike in less developed and powerful countries living with nature. Impact in
Sri Lanka is less as they live with nature with and eating hot spices. It is
time for the world to give priority to environment and live with nature with
environment friendly environment. It is also time for the leading powers to
unite to eradicate the pandemic helping the small nations and learning from their
traditional therapies which appear to be effective. Vaccine diplomacy will help
to create a new world order with friendly nations helping each other creating
natural immune systems in the natural environment. Disastrous multinational
food chains to be terminated in place of healthy food devoid junk and cola
worldwide especially among the rich/ children /students, mainly in the west.
Worldwide campaign for environmental protection and healthy food should be
given priority with uniformity worldwide. Agriculture to be streamlined with
new healthy and human friendly seeds vegetable and fruits with agreements with
the rich as well as poor large as well as small. Living with nature and give
priority to native and local is advisable for a long-term stable solution to
the disastrous pandemic we are surround with. Vaccine diplomacy will lead to
traditional diplomacy bonding the nations with goodwill love and cooperation on
political and economic frontiers leading for a post pandemic happy era soon. Living
with environment and protection of environment is paramount for a long lasting
solution for pandemic dragon.Sarath7@hotmail.co.uk
On 25th of February 2021 ‘’Ceylon Daily
News’’ published following news item;
‘’An ancient Ola leaf original copy of the Mahavamsa”
(Great Chronicle) currently kept at the library of the University of Peradeniya
is to be declared as a UNESCO World Heritage. The decision has been reached by
UNESCO experts upon verifying that all sections of the Mahavamsa” (the written
history of ancient Sri Lanka) were correctly conserved at the University
Library, Prof. Upul Dissanayake, Vice Chancellor of the Peradeniya University
told the media yesterday.’’ (https://dailynews.lk/2021/02/25/local/242520/ola-leaf-mahavamsa-be-declared-world-heritage)
According to same news item representatives of UNESCO have
inspected other Mahavamsa” palm-leaf books located at various places in the
country, but due to their shortcomings, they were deemed not eligible for World
Heritage status.
Mahavamsa” or “The Great Chronicle” is the
documented history of the great dynasty of Sri Lanka in general and Sinhalese
Buddhist in particular. This important work of Lankan origin is believed to have been written by Bhikku Mahanama in Pali language describes the life and times
of the people who forged Sri Lankan nation, from the coming of Vijaya in 543
BCE to the reign of King Mahasena (334 – 361) (6th Century BC to 4th Century
AD).
If not for the discovery of this great chronical by an
Englishman born in Ceylon the history of Sri Lanka would have taken a different
turn. He is the Hon. George Turnour. His
father George Turnour (Snr) landed in Ceylon in 1783 with 73rd
Regiment and in 1795, he was appointed Fort Adjutant of the Jaffna
Fort and later made Commandant of the Mannar Fort in
1797. He married Emilie de Beaussett, niece of Cardinal Duc de Beaussett. Born
in Ceylon on 11 March 1799, George Turnour Jnr was the eldest of six
siblings, he had one younger brother Edward Archer and four Sisters Anne Emily,
Frances, Elizabeth and Jane. Having
shown knack for academic enrichment, he was sent to England for education under
the patronage of Sir Thomas Maitland in 1811.
He returned in 1820. During this era most educated, talented
young men were drawn into the Colonial Service. Their principal objective was
the betterment of mankind in general, and not personal prosperity. Young George
Turnour was one of them and he joined the Ceylon Civil Service (CCS) as an
Assistant to the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsequently he was made
Assistant to the Chief Secretary. In 1822 he was appointed the Collector
of Kalutara thereafter he was appointed Government Agent
(GA) of Sabaragamuwa Province in 1825.
He noticed a strange document lay on his table not connected
with his routine duties as GA of the Province. This was an ola leaf manuscript
(palm-leaf manuscripts) brought by his friend Galle, a Buddhist monk. (Most
probably he was called Galle because he was a monk from ‘Mulikirigalla’). Galle
realised that the GA who was fairly knowledgeable in Sinhala language and a
talented man interested in history. They
had many discussions about the country’s history. As a result Turnour ’s
interest was aroused. Galle searched for ancient manuscript of history at many
Buddhist temples and finally found Tikā or commentary on the Mahāvaṁsa at
Mulikirigalla Rajamaha Vihara, near Tangalle. This was a temple founded one
hundred and fifty years before the birth of Christ.
Unfortunately the manuscript was written in ‘’Pali.’’
Although fluent in the Sinhalese vernacular, with a considerable knowledge of
Sinhalese script, Turnour knew nothing of Pali; an extinct language at that
time. But his friend Galle was there to help him. Galle contacted many Buddhist
monks who had scant knowledge of Pali language and helped his friend with
research. It took nearly 10 years to research and translate the chronical of
Sri Lanka ‘’Mahawansa’’ to English language while carrying out his official
duties. That was in the year 1837. However based on his study of the Mahawamsa
and other materials, Turnour published an article titled ‘Epitome of the
History of Ceylon’ in the Ceylon Almanac in 1833. In this
article he listed down the succession and genealogy of 165 Kings from the
arrival of Vijaya to the British. James Emerson Tennent who became the Colonial
secretary of Ceylon referring to the article said in this work, after infinite
labour, he (Turnour) succeeded in condensing the events of each reign,
commemorating the founders of the chief cities, and noting the erection of the
great temples and Buddhist monuments, and the construction of some of the reservoirs…he
thus effectually demonstrated the misconceptions of those who previously
believed the literature of Ceylon to be destitute of historic materials”.
The existence of an historical record called the Mahavansa,
or Great Dynasty, was known to a handful of Buddhist priests before translated
into English language. Since then many local and foreign scholars became
interested in the history of Ceylon. As a result many other ancient written
historical documents were discovered such as Deepawansa, Chulawansa, Atthakata
etc.
It is interesting to note some of the views expressed by
European scholars, prior to the 1830s, Robert Percival in his book in 1803
stated the wild stories current among the natives throw no light
whatever on the ancient history of the island. The earliest period which we can
look for any authentic information is the arrival of the Portuguese under
Almeida in 1505” and John Davy in his book in 1821 mentions the
Singhalese possess no accurate record of events; are ignorant of genuine
history, and are not sufficiently advanced to relish it”. (Quoted from ‘’Archaeological
Milestones in Sri Lanka: Part 01’’ by Chryshane Mendis)
If not for the efforts of George Turnour one of the oldest continuously recorded
chronicles in the world covering a period of over twenty three centuries like
Mahawamsa would have lost and the history of ‘’Sinhalese Buddhists’’ all but
forgotten.
George Turnour was appointed as Assistant Colonial Secretary
and was appointed Treasurer in 1841. Due to ill health he retired early and
returned to England and set out to Italy where he died in Naples on the 10
April 1843 aged 44 years.
This great scholar and historian was elected an honorary
member of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britten and Ireland. Following his
death, a fund was raised which erected a tablet at St. Pauls Church, Kandy. The
remaining funds were used to start the Turnour Prize at the Royal College,
Colombo.
Established in 1846, Turnour Prize was the
oldest of the panel prizes of the oldest public school of Sri Lanka, Royal College Colombo. It is one of the
most prestigious prizes and honour awarded to a student of the school. First
awarded to Charles Ambrose Lorensz (1846)
there are over 150 students who received this award on merit. All most all of
them became eminent personalities who made enormous contribution to the
progress of Sri Lanka and mankind.
Turnour Prize was dedicated to the historian George Tunour who surfaced the history
of Sri Lanka which was called ‘Tambapanni’, ‘Ratnadeepa’, ‘Dharmadeepa’,
‘Sinhale’, ‘Taprobane’, ‘Serandib’, ‘Zelan’, ‘Çeylon’ and many other names by
the inhabitants, visitors, travellers and conquerors. Finally his discovery has
been recognised as a ‘’World Heritage’’
George Tunour’s 222nd
birth anniversary falls on 11th March 2021.
I take pleasure in greeting all those celebrating the
Maha Sivarathri Festival in Sri Lanka and World over a blessed day.
Hindu devotees in Sri Lanka have a long tradition of
living in harmony with all ethnic groups. Devotees of the Hindu faith will fast
on the day of the festival as they believe that spiritual liberation will
manifest through the fast.
They believe that fasting and engaging in holy rituals
will lead to enriching their spiritual lives. They believe that observing a
pure and holy fast will bless them with the spiritual strength of God.
I trust that the pure and holy fast of the Hindu
devotees world over will be blessed by Lord Shiva and that all that is good and
pure will come to pass.
May all the hopes of a prosperous future be fulfilled
by the light of the lamps lit on the day of Maha Shivarathri.
May Maha Shivarathri be a meaningful and joyous day
for all those celebrating in Sri Lanka and around the world!
