Sri Lanka is the only country in the Asia region currently holding discussions with officials in the United States to revise the tariffs introduced by US President Donald Trump earlier this year, according to Minister of Labour and Deputy Minister of Economic Development Prof. Anil Jayantha Fernando.
Joining the Parliamentary debate today (30), where MPs are debating the fiscal strategy statement of the government, the Deputy Minister of Economic Development stated that they are hopeful the government will be able get a better deal from the US regarding the 44% tariff imposed earlier this year.
A Sri Lankan delegation last month held discussions in Washington, D.C., focusing on tariff-related matters, following an invitation extended by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
The reciprocal tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump has been paused for 90 days at present.
Deputy Minister of Economic Development Prof. Anil Jayantha Fernando in Parliament stated that the government will take all steps within their powers to reduce the tariffs imposed by the US which will have a major bearing on many local industries.
The Deputy Minister while the government is taking such important steps to safeguard local companies, the opposition is only focused on jeopardizing the work of the present administration.
Officials from India will extend their Washington visit to try to reach agreement on a trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration and address lingering concerns on both sides, two Indian government sources said on Monday.
Trade talks between India and the U.S. have hit roadblocks over disagreements on import duties for auto components, steel, and farm goods, ahead of Trump’s July 9 deadline to impose reciprocal tariffs.
The Indian delegation had been expected to conclude discussions by last Friday, but was staying on until at least Monday evening to iron out differences and move towards an agreement, officials said, declining to be named as the discussions are private.
There are certain disagreements over opening up the agriculture and dairy sectors, though India has offered tariff concessions on 90% of tariff lines. A final call will be taken by the political leadership of the two countries,” one of the government sources said.
The Indian delegation could stay for another one to two days if discussions continue,” the second source said.
Agriculture and dairy are big red lines” for India in its ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S., Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told the Financial Express newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
Yes, I’d love to have an agreement, a big, good, beautiful one; why not?” Sitharaman said, adding that an early conclusion of the trade deal would serve India better.
Trump said last week that America was going to have a very big” trade deal with India, but gave no details.
Mr. VolkerTurk Asoka Weerasinghe (Mr.) Kings Grove Crescent . Ottawa . Ontario . K1J 6G1 .CanadaUN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHRC) Palais Wilson 52 Rue des Paquis CH 1201, Geneva Switzerland.
Dear Mr. Turk.
So you were in Sri Lanka, on an assignment for the UNHRC which Nikki Haley, who was the US Ambassador to the UN (2017-18), defined you lot, quite rightly, as the cesspool of political bias, and a self serving body that makes a mockery of human rights.” Under my breath I said Sweet Mother of Jesus, Nikki is so damn right. Hallelujah!!”
So I read that the UN Human Rights Chief (YOU) urges (Sri Lankan) domestic mechanisms (to be) in line with international norms.”
Ha! Volker, you must be joking. If indeed it was to be a joke, you were pulling my wrong left leg, which did not have jingle bells. It was the right leg that had to be pulled to make a sound that would have made me tickle and laugh.
You know what Volker, for starters, you had no official mandate to finger and interfere
in my Mother Lanka’s domestic affairs or demand repealing her laws. You heard what Nikki Haley quite rightly said, didn’t you? Let me repeat it in case you missed it the first time…The UNHRC is the cesspool of political bias and a self serving body that makes a mockery of human rights.”
Volker, here is a FACT that you did not know. Sri Lanka (my Mother Lanka)
is not a member of the UNHRC, thus your resolutions are NON-BINDING.
So don’t be a bunch of pompous thuggish-bullies, trying to nail this democratic sovereign small island nation onto your ‘Goody two shoes’ rickety falling-apart cross of Human Rights.’
You know what Volker? You wouldn’t know what international norms in a war theatre are, even if a War textbook classic Military Act falls at your feet from heaven.
Here is a Sri Lankan Case Study where you at UNHRC makes a mockery of such international norms in Human Rights because you all at UNHRC are a
bunch of bullies in a Cesspool of political bias which seems to trump courage, decency, principled truth and honesty.
On the 18th May 2009, the Sri Lankan armed forces shot a bullet
through the forehead of Velupillai Prabhakaran, and killed the leader of the most ruthless Terrorist group in the world, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE aka Tamil Tigers) on the sands of the Nandikadal Lagoon on the Mullaitivu Coast of East Sri Lanka.
This killing annihilated the Tamil Tiger terrorist group that had hijacked
the paramount Human Right of Sri Lankan citizens, their ‘Right-to-Life’ for 30 blood-spilling years.
The end result was the giving back the Right-to-life” by Sri Lankan khaki fatigued soldiers, to 21 million Sri Lankans. And that was a monumental Human Rights Act worthy of a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. And you know it, and you all at the UNHCR knew it. And it sucks that you all couldn’t care two-Austrian-Euro coins for this brave act of Sri Lankan men and women soldiers. You all at your cesspool, never, ever gave any recognition of value FOR THIS COURAGEOUS ARMY ACT. Shish! What a bummer!! That’s pretty rich, isn’t it?
And you have the uppityness to tell the Sri Lankan Government that ..you urge domestic mechanisms in line with international norms.’ What norms are you talking of? That’s a load of poppycock, Volker!
And do you know what Volker? Your cesspool bunch didn’t care two pickled
Austrian herring in a Heringssalat. That’s how bogus Humbugs you all were. You all didn’t acknowledge this amazing act and say these words to our soldiers. This is amazing stuff. Congratulations! You all did it, especially when you all did not get any foreign military armoured support, like what the Tamil Tiger terrorists got.”
So Volker, its time that you all retire this biased BS. I am tired of Your
rude pie-in-the sky HUMBUG on my Mother Lanka. She deserves better!
And that is why I stand tall guarding her in Canada since July 24, 1983.
Here is the Case Study 2 which proves positive that your UNHCR is a cesspool of political bias and that it is time that you all retired your politically bias crap about my Mother Lanka that I have been romancing since July 24, 1983,when she was in trouble with people like you, and your colleagues like Ban ki-Moon, Navi Pillay, Steven Ratner, Marzuki Darusman, and Yasmin Sooka. Like the Canadian parliamentarians who supported the Sri Lankan Tamil separatist cause, bartered for votes at Federal elections.
In March 2009, the Tamil Tiger terrorists marched 295,873 Tamils as a Human Shield from the west coast of Sri Lanka to the east coast under a scorching-hot Jaffna-Kilinochchi sun like unwashed cattle. These Tamils got a God-sent humane break to continue living longer, when they were rescued from the clutches of the Tamil Tiger terrorists by the Sri Lakan soldiers before being bumped off by them., The end result of this miraculous War Act of love, honesty and caring by these Sinhalese soldiers were to go to lengths to sustain the lives of these 295,873 Tamils. They were housed in a White Tent City, and provided them a million cooked meals a day, under a Dietician’s supervision, breakfasts, lunches and dinners. Did you hear me say, a million cooked meals a day….
Yes, a million meals a day.”
And, Volker, your Smart-Alec-Goody-two-shoes colleagues at UNHRC did not have the honesty, courtesy, and decency to acknowledge this amazing Classic Textbook War Act How come Volkert? Was it because what Nikki Haley discerned that you were a cesspool of political bias and a self serving body that makes a mockery of human rights,” was right knocking the socks off you all!
And this is what happened. You at UNHRC, purposely missed giving credit to the Sri Lankan soldiers for this amazing life rescuing Humanitarian Act, and had the gall and temerity to ignore it and give no recognition to this humbling, honest, loving act. Boo!..to you all Volker Turk…what a bunch of dishonest, ignoramus
Do-dos. That was brutal. Was it not this actin line with international norms that You asked the Government of Sri Lanka to adopt?”
Tough tiddy”, I say.
And, Man-Oh-Man!, Sweet Mother of Jesus, the UN High Commissioner Volker Turk, the UNHRC Head, slipped badly on your protocol when you continued with that stupid Tamil Tiger terrorist promoting shenanigan act, when you took a helicopter ride to lay flowers for a selective mourning of dead Tamil Tiger terrorists in Chemmani, Aren’t you stupid, or what?
You talk claiming to be a bright-eyed ‘human rights’ wallah from the United Nations. Did you not know that there were two factions in this war. Where was your neutrality when you did not reciprocate by laying flowers at a grave of the massacred Sinhalese by the Tamil Tigers, which happened to be the other faction in this Eelam War. Damn it, Volker! That shameful bias act further polarized the two factions that were at war for 30-long years, the Tamils wanting their mono-ethnic, racist, separate Tamil state, Eelam. And the Sinhalese saying
to the Tamils
Oh, No, we won’t let that land go.
As this is My land as well as Your land,
from Valvettithurai in the North
to Dondra Head in the South.
So ou can go and fly a kite
and don’t you spoil us for a fight!”
You could have taken the same helicopter to the site where the Aranthalawa grave site is of the 32 Novice Buddhist monks who were massacred, butchered, shot dead and chopped with machetes and swords, and laid a wreath or a tray of flowers, as you did for the dead Tamils at Chemmani.
In my eyes you are guilty of this atrocious bias. I will NOT forgive you. With that stupidity you have abrogated the call of the Manthra by your employer UNHRC for RECONCILIATION between the two warring parties.
That is a bucket load of stinking rotting Austrian herring Volker. What You just did, that bias act, was not a good reason for a RECONCILIATION but a good reason for a RE-CON-SILLY-A-SHUN.
You lost it big time on that one. It’s time that you at UNHRC stop promoting
Reconciliation. You foolish people…no one is going to trust you lot as a bunch of honest, squeaky clean Human Rights wallahs. No damn way! You blew it BIG TIME, Volker…You Blew it…You blew it. Don’t be foolish and repeat that foolishness again.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the Government of Sri Lanka had the gumption and demanded from You now that you are heading the UNHRC, that
An apology for the selective glorification of Tamil Tiger terrorists – linked grave sites;
Refuse to visit massacre sites and meet with families of Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim victims of the Tamil Tiger massacres;
A full audit of the Darusman, Petrie and OISL reports were commissioned, funded, and used outside of UNGA and UNSC mandate;
A UNGA – led legal review of all resolutions and reports against Sri Lanka;
Reaffirmation that non-international armed conflicts fall under domestic jurisdiction;
Review on how human rights laws have replaced international humanitarian laws for selective justice.
HC Volker Turk, by now you must be wondering who the heck is this guy
Asoka Weerasinghe is?
By now from the composition of the language of my letter, you may rightly guessed that I’m no diplomat. I leave the diplomatic writings to Sri Lanka’s paid diplomats.
I have written over 2000 letters on this file since August 4, 1983, and over 500 have picked up ink in leading newspapers in Canada and political journals Among them are letters sent to Ban Ki Moon; Louis Arbor, Navi Pillay, Michelle Bachelet and now to you Volker Turk at UNHRC.
This letter to you was written from my heart, and I am sure you might have felt my love of gratitude for my Mother Lanka that I still call my home. And the collective anger towards who ever trying to sully the dignity of her good name because of this Tamil Eelam War
What you did not see or feel the heat was of my spitting Dragon-breath from of my cartwheeling eyes to those who are trying to hurt my Mother Lanka unfairly, who nurtured me for the first 19-years of my life I live in immense gratitude for her… and she knows that I will stand in guard for her in Canada, and I will never, ever let her down.
You will certainly hear my voice again with each misstep by you on this file, like the church bells of the Gothic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Linz, Austria.
Sincerely
Asoka Weerasinghe (Mr.)
Cc. Hon. Vijitha Herath, Sri Lanka’s Minister of Foreign Affairs
Sri Lanka Army Commander Lieutenant General Lasantha Rodrigo RSP
In a letter addressed to the Health Minister, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, the Association of Medical Specialists (AMS) pointed out that medical staff are increasingly being forced to request patients to obtain medicines, consumables, and laboratory investigations from external sources, an act that, in the absence of official guidance, has subjected them to public criticism and professional risk. The AMS questioned whether it is permissible for doctors to issue prescriptions for medical items not available in hospital pharmacies and whether they are allowed to direct patients to specific suppliers particularly when items are only available through a limited number of vendors and time-sensitive care is needed, such as in cardiology, orthopaedics, or trauma surgery (https://www.dailymirror.lk/ breaking -news/Drug-shortage-puts-medical-professionals-in-quandary/108-312277)
No doubt there are, and will be, diverse opinions expressed by many about drug shortages in Sri Lanka. The writer too expressed his views as noted in the following articles in December 2022 and again in January 2025.
Drug shortages and impact on health outcomes: Is it only the tip of the iceberg? – https://www.ft.lk/columns/Drug-shortages-and-impact-on-health-outcomes–Is-it-only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-/4-743137
In these, the importance of ensuring demand is calculated accurately for the supply side of the supply and demand equation to work effectively was highlighted. As was pointed out, demand computation cannot rely entirely on usage data, and the importance of corroborating this information with other data such as morbidity data and consultations with medical doctors about future trends and the impact these will have on demand was also highlighted in these articles. A suggestion was also made to manage the drug supply chain based on the concept of manging by objectives, or MbO.
In this regard, a proposal was made to have as an objective, the vitality of ensuring availability of adequate stock of (a) essential items to meet the demand for them, by so categorising them, and estimating demand for them as accurately as possible issuing usage data, morbidity data and data based on medical officer consultations and impact on demand, and similarly categorising items that (b) items that cost a majority component of the expenditure on drugs using what is called the 80/20 rule. This rule says that approximately 20% of items cost around 80% of the expenditure, and the focus of management should be prioritised to ensure these two objectives (a) and (b) are achieved, of course not at the cost of ignoring the management of other items, but giving priority for the relatively fewer items that matter from a curative and financial perspective than trying to manage all items with equal time and funds. Considering the shortcomings in the overall supply chain, attempting to manage every item on a priority basis would render even critical items being out of stock as seems to be happening.
The other relevant factor particularly regarding objective (b) is the limited amount of funds that is available to procure drugs even if the demand estimate produces a higher need than the funds available to meet that demand, and where some high-level decisions have to be made by authorities in consultation with the medical profession on prioritisation. The need to further rationalise the drug formulary for the State sector and introducing a definitive formulary for the private sector was also highlighted as the proliferation of drugs in the private sector and the number of brands of the same drug imported by the private sector appeared to be feeding the commercial interests of the private sector rather than the welfare of the patients.
The Association of Medical Specialists (AMS) in Sri Lanka in their statement emphasized the potential for increased morbidity and mortality rates due to the crisis and urged the government to take immediate action to address the situation and ensure the availability of necessary medical supplies.
In the Daily Mirror article titled Medical specialists warn of medicine shortages in hospitals” (https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/Medical-specialists-warn-of-medicine-shortages-in-hospitals/108-312437) in addition to what is quoted at the beginning of this article, it also says that The AMS President further said that a group of medicine suppliers had written to the Health Minister, accusing the Ministry of giving special treatment to certain companies when selecting suppliers for essential medicines.
The AMS President had warned that if this continues, a few companies will control medicine prices and cause repeated shortages, as the Health Ministry will have to depend on just one supplier for some medicines.
The AMS President has highlighted a few key issues that need further examination and clarification. It alludes to among other things, the commercial interests of the private sector taking priority over the needs of patients in public hospitals. In this regard, the following statement gives an indication of where the expenditure outlay for drugs is in Sri Lanka and the significant role played by the private sector.
The Sri Lanka Medical Association says that the country’s total pharmaceutical expenditure covering both State and private sectors in 2022 was estimated at Rs. 163 billion per annum, and about Rs. 58 billion for the State sector and Rs. 105 billion for private sector (https://slma.lk/wp-content/uploads /2023/05/ newsletter_APRIL). As per this data, in Sri Lanka’s pharmaceutical market, private sector imports accounted for 60% of the total market share in 2024. Local manufacturing, primarily within the private sector, contributed only a small fraction, around 6%. The remaining 34% is attributed to the State sector.
Sri Lanka Imports of Pharmaceutical products were US$452.63 Million during 2024, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Sri Lanka Imports of Pharmaceutical products – data, historical chart and statistics – was last updated on June of 2025 (https://tradingeconomics.com/sri-lanka/imports/pharmaceutical-products)
The Board of Investment says that the local pharmaceutical expenditure records a value of USD 750 million, with a projected five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.1%. At present, 85% of pharmaceutical needs are imported with local manufacturers providing 15% of the requirement. (https://investsrilanka. Com /medical-and-pharmaceutical/)
According to Volza’s Sri Lanka Import data, Sri Lanka imported 6,916 shipments of Pharmaceuticals during Oct 2023 to Sep 2024 (TTM). These imports were supplied by 1,162 foreign exporters to 341 Sri Lanka buyers, marking a growth rate of 15% compared to the preceding twelve months. Within this period, in Sep 2024 alone, Sri Lanka imported 535 Pharmaceuticals shipments (https://www.volza.com/p/ pharmaceuticals import/import-in-sri-lanka/)
The data quoted by the SLMA, the United Nations Comtrade, and the BOI figure are vastly different and it would be in the best interest of all concerned if an actual verifiable set of data are provided by the government to the public as much speculation could result if such information is not provided considering varying figures published by different entities. However, what is generally clear as per all statements is that the pharmaceutical market in Sri Lanka is a very sizeable one and that approximately 65- 70% of this is accounted for by the private sector and 30 -35% by the State sector.
The dominance of the private sector in the pharmaceutical trade
These statistics, in particular the major share of the pharmaceutical market held by the private sector (approximately 65-70%), and the statement by the AMA about the fate of prescriptions, quite widely known by the public about hospitals inability to provide their drug requirements and being given prescriptions to buy their drugs from the private pharmacies, and AMS statement that a group of medicine suppliers had written to the Health Minister, accusing the Ministry of giving special treatment to certain companies when selecting suppliers for essential medicines. The President had warned that if this continues, a few companies will control medicine prices and cause repeated shortages, as the Health Ministry will have to depend on just one supplier for some medicines” seems to highlight a situation that is beyond the shortcomings of the State drug supply chain.
It is understood that in Sri Lanka, the private sector import of drugs is not limited to a specific, strictly enforced formulary in the same way it is in the public sector. While the public sector utilizes a formulary to restrict prescribing to around 850 items, the private sector historically has had a broader range of drugs available without formulary restrictions. It is reported that there isn’t a definitive, publicly available and enforced list specifying the exact number of drugs currently imported into the private sector.
Based on what appears to be a very liberal and open-ended policy for the private sector when it comes to drug imports, the commercial interest of the private sector seems to be the beneficiary when more and more prescriptions are diverted from State hospitals to the private sector and the demand for drugs imported by the private sector increases.
Besides this, the contention by some importers that amongst 1,162 foreign exporters to 341 Sri Lanka buyers (as per Volza’s data quoted above), there is a move to divert a bulk of the imports to a select number of suppliers gives an indication of a possible breach in good practice in procurement and the possibility of a violation of the procurement law in the country.
The beneficiary of both issues of course is the private sector as they will increase their imports and their profits, in supplying the demand that has increased on account of shortages reported in public hospitals. It is also possible that some prescriptions issued by some doctors are for drugs that are outside the National Formulary and not stocked in public hospitals, and are available only in private pharmacies, although the media publicity alludes that to shortages in hospitals. Drug shortages in public hospitals should be considered from this context as well as it would not be speculation but a fact that the beneficiary in case of both types of shortages, genuine shortages as well as what are reported as shortages, is the private sector. It is not an impossibility that both types of shortages may be deliberately created to provide more business for the private sector. The government should undertake an assessment of shortages in the public sector from this broader perspective to rule in or rule out any possible connivance by some doctors as well as public health sector officials with the private sector, or whether the shortages are entirely due to shortcomings in the public sector drug supply chain, and possibly due to funding shortfalls or a combination of both.
The statement by the AMS that some suppliers had complained of a few suppliers having a monopoly when it comes to supplying the Sri Lankan market needs to be examined. As contended by these suppliers, it is not an uncommon corrupt practice to deliberately divert most procurement of drugs to a few suppliers for price fixing and profit where that profit is shared by those responsible for procurement and the suppliers. While it is true that private sector procurement is entirely the responsibility of the private sector and they are governed by their company rules and procedures and how they compete amongst other private sector entities, it is also a social and ethical responsibility on their part to provide drugs at the most economical price to their customers. The public sector practice is governed by State procurement procedures which are developed based on the procurement law of the country. Violation of these are punishable offences. However, creation of shortages through deliberate manipulations such as usage of inaccurate demand data for procurement of drugs, which then results in shortages as what is procured is less than what is actually needed is not uncommon. This leads to emergency procurement to bridge the shortfall, with such procurement invariably being done through a few suppliers at very high prices.
Sri Lanka which has held an honourable universal healthcare system that has been the envy of countries in the region, needs to ensure that no public hospital patient is deprived of his or her drug requirements, and the public health sector must operate within the approved drug formulary. Besides this, no public sector doctor should be permitted to issue prescriptions for drugs outside this formulary for patients seeking outpatient services or inpatient services in public hospitals accept under specific circumstances where an approved process is followed for obtaining a formulary exception or initiating a prescription for a non-formulary medicine, where the patient’s clinical needs are not adequately addressed by drugs within the formulary.
In Sri Lanka, reports indicate that the public healthcare sector handles the majority of patient care, with 643 public hospitals providing 86,589 beds. In 2019, public hospitals facilitated 7.477 million inpatient admissions. The private sector, while growing, is more accessible to those who can afford it. Private hospitals, nursing homes, and maternity homes increased from 800 in 2015 to 1432 in 2019, but only 111 are hospitals, nursing homes, and maternity homes. While private hospitals account for a smaller percentage of beds (5.41% of public sector bed capacity in 2017), they play a significant role in specific areas. These statistics and the expenditure on pharmaceuticals seem to be at odds with the patient numbers treated, as an overwhelming majority of patients are treated in public hospitals, although the value of State imports as a percentage of the total value of imports is around 35%, while the private sector which is responsible for less than 10% of inpatients and at most 50% of outpatients (patients in private hospitals, nursing homes, maternity homes, patients seen by private practitioners and patients who are issued drugs without prescriptions) accounts for 65 -70% of the imports. The conclusion one can draw is that (a) a substantial number of State hospital prescriptions are directed to private pharmacies (for items included in the National Formulary which are stocked in public hospitals, and also items outside it which are not stocked), and/or (b) the private sector imports and sells many items outside a formulary as they are not bound by one. Fundamentally, based on available data, the numbers do not add up and one cannot but feel that the move towards private sector imports is deliberate and not accidental.
In conclusion, it could be said that there is more to drug shortages than what meets the eye, and the minister of health should investigate the issue more deeply in order to ensure commercial interests do not stand in the way of patients in public health hospitals being deprived of their drug requirements on account of the possible self interest of others. The budget allocation for the public health sector drug needs to be critically analysed, an enforceable formulary introduced for all private sector drug imports and the public sector medical practitioners barred from issuing prescriptions for items outside the national formulary except in clearly defined circumstances.
‘Before you study the economics, study the economists!’
e-Con e-News 22-28 June 2025
*
‘Tell the old lady [Sirimavo Bandaranaike] that some prophet
who also thinks that he is the father of the industrial revolution
in Sri Lanka believes that he can produce all the mammoties
we need in some smithy in Kotmale’ – Brian Senanayake,
Senior Assistant Secretary under Minister of Industries TB Subasinghe,
to his cousin MDD Peiris, Secretary
to the Prime Minister, quoted in Peiris’ autobiography
In Pursuit of Governance
*
‘Difficult songs find few singers’
– Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei
*
Here is a torrid tale of how England has had the monopoly over making mammoties in Sri Lanka. Even though, if you stop even now, or stopped even then (in 1974, when this anecdote unreels) any English man or woman on a dank London Street, and ask or asked them, then as now: what on earth a mammoty is? – they certainly wouldn’t know this ‘English’ word, let alone care to know. They may even think it an obscenity. The English farmer uses or used a spade, which uses the weight of their body to unearth the wintry hard soil, that is, until they were replaced by machines. The Sinhala farmer seemed to prefer the swinging motion of the mammoty, that perhaps keeps them in shape for other activity.
Yet, someone in that Bandaranaike government of 1970-77 had decided it was time for Sri Lanka to make its own farming implements. Yet others thought it was still not the right time. And we wondered who they, pro & con, could have been?
The Sunday Island has been faithfully excerpting MDD Peries’ memoirs. This mammoty episode unfolds around 1974, in the midst of worldwide famines, the skyrocketing of fuel & food prices, and the usual ‘shortage’ of foreign exchange.
The Chillington Company of England has been producing this ‘Crocodile’ brand mammoty, since 1876. It has gained a prickly reputation for suing any local attempt to make it here. The Chillington brand, recalls Peiris nostalgically, ‘was extremely popular with our farming community, particularly the paddy farmers’. And Peiris was skeptical about attempts ‘being made to produce it locally under license by the State Hardware Corporation’.
Yet as one erudite ee reader has already recalled:
‘The State Hardware Corp produced very good mammoties.
Kotmale produced steel products under Workers’ Councils.
Kotmale was famous for smiths & smithies. The tradition goes
back to a fugitive Gamunu from Rohana. If developed as envisaged,
Kotmale could have developed as Sheffield, Jamshedpur, Shanghai,
paving the way for an industrial resurgence.’
The Secretary to the PM, MDD Peries however is somewhat derisive:
‘We also needed to import a certain number annually.
However there also was at this time a doctrinaire
anti-import lobby who fervently believed that we could
produce good quality mammoties in the forges of Kotmale.’
Peries blames ‘the vociferousness of this lobby’ that led ‘to the government hesitating to place orders for the import of the ‘Crocodile’ mammoty, pending a study’, yet appears to make a valid point (reminiscent of the recent ‘organic fertilizer’ fiasco):
‘There now arose a possibility of a serious shortage of good
quality mammoties, when land preparation for the sowing
of the main Maha paddy crop was drawing near.’
Let’s try to figure out who on earth constituted this ‘doctrinaire’ ‘vociferous lobby’? And even more, who this putative ‘father of the industrial revolution in Sri Lanka’ could have been? And how these ‘serious shortages’ are stage-managed? There’s no proof, but we have no doubt that Peiris’ cousin Brian Senanayake is referring to no one other than SBD de Silva. After all, SBD was a Director of Industrial Policy & Economic Research at the Ministry, and later Secretary to Ministerof Industries & Scientific Affairs TB Subasinghe.
Peiris’ prose flows mellifluous, and his memoirs are usually a pleasure to read. Yet he appears to lose his cool here. His recollections usually portray himself as an unflappable heir to the traditions of the purportedly even-handed English civil service. Yet one gets the sense, that he’s also doing his best to maintain decorum midst the rise of the rule of the darker yakos after 1948.
Peiris’ recall is to be envied, and his anecdotes are indeed compelling and endearing, but there is a strange vacuity about the urgency of national production, epitomized in his rendition of this mammoty moment. Here is his ‘cousin’ who is working as Senior Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Industries under Minister TB Subasinghe, and an ‘assistant’ to SB, urgently calling him up to get him to warn the PM:
‘The message was very clear. I briefed the Prime Minister.
Regretfully, I could not quote the original text of the message.
Mammoties were ordered, but by the time they arrived some delay
was caused and the newspapers were full of the shortage of mammoties.’
Why are the newspapers never ‘full’ about the need for modern industrialization? Can we deduce any positive identification from such a stray gratuitous comment broadcast in the media, made by one senior bureaucrat to another? A comment which displays the continuity of the ‘permanent government’, run by the so-called civil service inherited from the colonial machinery.
This anecdote illustrates not just the family connections and class interests shared between senior members of the ‘civil service’ and bureaucracy. It is clear Senanayake knew his plaint would resonate with his dear cousin Peries, who indeed was fully in accord with his concerns.
SBD would later write about the downright ingenuity of the sabotage that any attempt at industrialization must withstand. SBD de Silva, anyway, in 1974 was about to be targeted again as a ‘communist’ and forced to resign. ‘A doctrinaire anti-import lobby!’ indeed.
May we conclude that Peiris & Senanayake were part of the ‘permanent’ ‘opposition’ embedded in the bureaucracy? ‘Doctrinaire’ enemies to any real change in the colonial import-export plantation economy, a quarter of a century after so-called independence?
‘The growing intervention of governments in the affairs
of private business makes it entrepreneurially helpful for
the large, invariably expatriate firms to keep the goodwill
of politicians, and to take on to their staffbureaucrats
whose contacts established during their service
with the government’ are invaluable to the firms,
in their dealings with government over foreign
exchange licences, raw material allocations, pricing,
taxation, & matters pertaining to foreign investments.’
– SBD de Silva, Political Economy of Underdevelopment
However, it also does not mean that the pro-industrialization ‘lobby’ has been fully aware of the challenges, political, technical and military, they would face, that only a Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong could overcome. ‘92% of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) payments still go to the global north (see ee Economists). As for SBD being ‘the father’, we should be clearer. While ee has tried to record Sri Lanka’s many attempts and failures to industrialize, pointing to those like DJ ‘Laxapana’ Wimalasurendra, to Philip Gunawardena & GVS de Silva & William de Silva, to TB Illangaratne, who worked tirelessly to industrialize the country, despite vehement & vicious & deadly opposition, it is SBD de Silva in his book The Political Economy of Underdevelopment (PEU) who examined and crystalized those efforts, recognizing: that modern ‘machine-making’ industrialization is more than dainty handicraft, more than assembly & manufacture. He saw that such an industrial revolution would require many fathers and mothers. And as ee keeps jabbering, requires the ‘manufacture of manufacturers’, the ‘invention of inventors’ – yes, modern industrialization…
*
Indeed – ‘Difficult songs find few singers.’ And SBD de Silva penned difficult songs. And perhaps few can sing what SBD conjured. His song is not a melody that Mr. Maharajah’s MTV and other merchant media bestow superstar celebrity status on, multiplying mindless memes ten-thousand-fold. His reverberating vibes were about the need to industrially transform a colonial import-export plantation economy, and to thus build a powerful modern country, not remain a beggar who must endure the ‘shithole’ sermons from genocidal maniacs.
The quotable quote about ‘difficult songs find few singers’ comes from a recent interview with Chinese tech provider Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei. Ren is evoking those researchers who undertake challenging tasks in awesome conditions. And this is what SBD undertook. Whereas the media largely runs scared of SB’s ideas, Ren’s interview made the front page of People’s Daily, the premier Communist Party of China medium (see ee Focus):
Q: Facing external blockades & pressure,
encountering many difficulties, what are your thoughts?
A: I haven’t thought about it – thinking about it is useless.
Don’t think about difficulties
– just get on & do it, and move forward step by step
…Praise brings pressure.
A bit of scolding keeps us clearheaded.’
Huawei’s Ren seems to shrug off (as any real leader would) the attempts by the US & Europe to hobble China’s rise – through political, industrial as well as military means. He singles out ‘the importance of basic research to long-term competitiveness’. The interviewers point out that US economists themselves have noted ‘the US lacks a high‑speed rail system because capitalism demands immediate individual profit’, whereas ‘China’s socialist approach values social benefit: high‑speed rail, heavy‑haul lines, advanced power grids, expressways, rural infrastructure.’
Yet, while Ren’s enterprise now invents newer & sexier communication tools, SBD’s attempts toward Sri Lanka, even making a simple farm implement, were blocked. SB’s musical notes & instrumental notions are after all not that very different nor more difficult than Ren’s – for they are common sense. SBD’s words seek to make us stand up, midst squalls threatening to knock us over and drown us if we do not learn to navigate storms more deadly than we have had to endure for centuries, located as we are in another increasingly raucous intersection of the world. Yet, if we take the time & effort to listen, to read carefully, we’d appreciate how deeply intricate & rich are SBD de Silva’s analyses & arguments & prognoses. Their difficulty lies in getting the actions & accompanying words to resonate in the real world, midst the seemingly overwhelming and diverting din & dance of the usurious merchant hegemon and their sponsors.
And while there is still much chatter about our ‘Asiatic’ despotism (resonant in the numerous delegations of genocidal warmongers calling on us savages to ‘reconcile’ & make ‘peace’…) let’s recall the great Guinea-Bissau leader Amilcar Cabral’s axiom, that the role of the person with the weapon, is to protect the person with the tool. We well recall that the Portuguese, the Dutch & the English first attacked our smithies, and then our waterways (the material basis of the purana village solidarity) and fields. We can bear witness to the studious dedication of the imperialists to the destruction of the artisanal class that must make up the liberatory proletariat, with our ‘foreign employment’ agents ever ready to pack them off to servitude in distant lands.
Again: as Secretary to the Ministry of Industries & Scientific Affairs in 1974, SBD de Silva had to fend off the ingenious merchant sabotage of the policies he recommended. He also learned how weak the Sri Lankan state’s tools and weapons were, and still are, let alone our understanding of what true industrialization entails – he concluded it requires a political, economic & military policy. And now we get to witness again yet another government having to contend with the so-called ‘black economy’ of mafias, cartels, etc.
Yet, in truth this ‘black economy’ is as ‘white’ as ever, for these saboteurs are a front for the so-called ‘Free Market’, monopolized by European (& their settler) multinational banks & corporations, who are the main opponents of our countries’ modern advance. Which makes us wonder, whatever happened to that League of Multinational Corporations (LMNC), led by Unilever, which was inaugurated in 2018, crying out, ‘Everything needs to be fixed’ in Sri Lanka? And, why do they appear so quiet, at least in this ‘sunlit’ media they sponsor?
*
‘The ownership & control of the foreign enterprises
in the nonsettler colonies were held by powerful corporations
abroad. Their sources of economic power lay outside the country
of investment & therefore out of reach of the newly independent
governments. The ramifications of such external control extend
over the whole of the colonial export economy including the financing,
marketing & sale of plantation or mining products, & its roots
are not easy to unravel let alone exterminate.’
– SBD de Silva, PEU
The League of Multinational Corporations (LMNC) in Sri Lanka, was formed in 2018 by seven MNCs: Unilever, Ceylon Tobacco Company (CTC, i.e., British American Tobacco), Baur & Co, Heineken, HSBC, Indian Oil Co, and Mastercard. These powerful MNCs, with war chests bigger than most countries’ budgets, demanded of Sri Lanka: ‘Everything needs to be fixed in the context of international standards, in terms of human rights & labor laws too.’ And ‘fixing’, as in fraud, is surely what they do best!
For SBD, industrialization was not just trading (‘take a walk along the pavement & see what’s on sale, and where & how it is made’) or assembly (like the ‘garment’ fraud that refuses to make a pin), handicraft (plucking tea seems hands personified alright!) or manufacture (primitive production), but ultimately modern industry (the making of machines). But how to get there (where one thing leads to another) was & is the question?
MDD Peiris’ naivete or ignorance is epitomized in the recent excerpts of his memoirs, of his rendition of a trip to the USA to learn about wheat, then later mentioning the imposition of that great Japanese-Singaporean fraud called Prima Flour. He seems not to have been taken to where the latest agricultural machineries were being designed and produced, or the industrial-agricultural colleges. Instead, he is introduced to the marketing side of the food chain…
*
‘Without basic research, you plant no roots. & without roots,
even trees with lush leaves fall at the first wind’
Huawei’s Ren (see ee Focus) offers sheer cool in the face of imperialist opposition to China’s industrial rise. He also gives examples of scientists & artists (are they different quantities, really?) who work almost underground & unsung, doing ‘basic research’ that may never see the light of day, for decades or even centuries to come. SBD de Silva was indeed a basic researcher, and his aria arrayed the uncovering of the political and economic roots of Sri Lanka’s disquiet, with examples from around the world, when the evidence at home was scant or missing.
There have been those who criticized SBD for not writing or translating his important work into Sinhala. But first he had to gather the evidence, which was mostly in English and put it all together. On the other hand, those who criticized him never sought to explain or extend his work in Sinhala. They were too busy stimulating their acolytes with the psychoanalytic postmodernisms of French theory, that has failed to liberate the French themselves from their murderous metier and libidinal neuroses – ‘postmodern’ theories, which were a US-state-financed ideological attack on Marxism-Leninism, etc, the praxis that has made China ‘great’ again.
*
‘The rigorous curtailment of Western education
[in the settler colonies] was in contrast to the
educational policy in nonsettler colonies –eg, India,
Sri Lanka, Malaysia, & the West Indies – where
Westernization & Western education were deliberately fostered.’
We were dangerously diverted last week by the deadly war games & media hype of the imperialist powers & their ‘running dogs’ (there’s a phrase we haven’t heard in a while, but it sure fits Ukraine & Israel, Germany & Japan, etc), from marking more fully the 7th anniversary of the passing of SBD de Silva, and his formidable legacy.
This week saw repeated hype about the World Bank’s $50million dollar loan for ‘education’, which will supposedly benefit ‘500,000-students & 150,000 teachers’. Wow! The hijacking & bribing of the Ministry of Education & its officials, recalls the different forms of education permitted in the different types of colonies, discussed in Chapter 6 of SBD’s classic work, on ‘Settler growth & the repression of indigenous interests’, which ee begins this week (see ee Focus). Here, SBD goes into further detail of the different economic policies of nonsettler colonies such as Sri Lanka and the settler colonies, as well as the white ‘dominions’. See how the media goes on about the need for ‘exports’ all the time – which SB notes is a feature of such colonies of ours – whereas settlers ‘generally catered for domestic or regional markets’.
*
• In these days of municipal horse trading, ee continues looking into that famed New York ‘charity’ – the political machine called Tammany Hall, and its role in fixing ‘democracy’ to divide the ‘spoils’ of urban political office: where ‘the control of the police force was considered as necessary as ever to success at the election’ and ‘political & pecuniary reasons alone guided the appointment of policemen’ such that ‘the police being so disorganized, the criminal classes ran the town’. We find it interesting however that there is almost no reference by Gustavus Myers, author of the 1917 History of Tammany Hall, to the larger political and economic forces that ruled that country at that time.
Which is why it’s so enlightening to hear this week (see ee Economists) about the historian Gerald Horne’s latest work, The Capital of Slavery: Washington DC 1800-65. He is not just referring to a municipality but to the ‘international’ business of buying & selling people: The USA, at that same time as Myer’s tale, was involved in the wholesale kidnapping of people from Africa and breeding more, and selling them not just to their southern cotton penitentiaries, but also to the European colonies of the Caribbean (Cuba, etc) and the rest of the Americas (Brazil, the last country in the Western Hemisphere where slavery was abolished, only in 1888), and their extension to the Pacific (Hawaii) and Asia (the Philippines, in particular). As noted last week, the settler colonies & the white dominions truly believe they are success stories – regardless of their horrors then & now – and see their model as desirous of replication. They badly need to be disabused of such fairy tales, and history is on its way toward doing just that…
Ahmad Ibsais First generation Palestinian American and law student, Courtesy Al Jazeera
Americans still have fresh memories of the death and destruction of the previous US imperial adventure in the region.
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media at the White House in Washington DC, on June 27, 2025 [Ken Cedeno/Reuters]
On June 22, American warplanes crossed into Iranian airspace and dropped 14 massive bombs. The attack was not in response to a provocation; it came on the heels of illegal Israeli aggression that took the lives of 600 Iranians. This was a return to something familiar and well-practised: an empire bombing innocents across the orientalist abstraction called the Middle East”. That night, US President Donald Trump, flanked by his vice president and two secretaries, told the world Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace”.
There is something chilling about how bombs are baptised with the language of diplomacy and how destruction is dressed in the garments of stability. To call that peace is not merely a misnomer; it is a criminal distortion. But what is peace in this world, if not submission to the West? And what is diplomacy, if not the insistence that the attacked plead with their attackers?
In the 12 days that Israel’s illegal assault on Iran lasted, images of Iranian children pulled from the wreckage remained absent from the front pages of Western media. In their place were lengthy features about Israelis hiding in fortified bunkers. Western media, fluent in the language of erasure, broadcasts only the victimhood that serves the war narrative.
And that is not just in its coverage of Iran. For 20 months now, the people of Gaza have been starved and incinerated. By the official count, more than 55,000 lives have been taken; realistic estimates put the number at hundreds of thousands. Every hospital in Gaza has been bombed. Most schools have been attacked and destroyed.
Leading human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already declared that Israel is committing genocide, and yet, most Western media would not utter that word and would add elaborate caveats when someone does dare say it live on TV. Presenters and editors would do anything but recognise Israel’s unending violence in an active voice.
Despite detailed evidence of war crimes, the Israeli military has faced no media censure, no criticism or scrutiny. Its generals hold war meetings near civilian buildings, and yet, there are no media cries of Israelis being used as human shields”. Israeli army and government officials are regularly caught lying or making genocidal statements, and yet, their words are still reported as the truth.
US politics, Canada’s multiculturalism, South America’s geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter.Subscribe
A recent study found that on the BBC, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, despite Palestinians dying at a rate of 34 to 1 compared with Israelis. Such bias is no exception, it is the rule for Western media.
Like Palestine, Iran is described in carefully chosen language. Iran is never framed as a nation, only as a regime. Iran is not a government, but a threat —not a people, but a problem. The word Islamic” is affixed to it like a slur in every report. This is instrumental in quietly signalling that Muslim resistance to Western domination must be extinguished.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons; Israel and the United States do. And yet only Iran is cast as an existential threat to world order. Because the problem is not what Iran holds, but what it refuses to surrender. It has survived coups, sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage. It has outlived every attempt to starve, coerce, or isolate it into submission. It is a state that, despite the violence hurled at it, has not yet been broken.
And so the myth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction becomes indispensable. It is the same myth that was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. For three decades, American headlines have whispered that Iran is just weeks away” from the bomb, three decades of deadlines that never arrive, of predictions that never materialise.
But fear, even when unfounded, is useful. If you can keep people afraid, you can keep them quiet. Say nuclear threat” often enough, and no one will think to ask about the children killed in the name of keeping the world safe”.
This is the modus operandi of Western media: a media architecture not built to illuminate truth, but to manufacture permission for violence, to dress state aggression in technical language and animated graphics, to anaesthetise the public with euphemisms.
Time Magazine does not write about the crushed bones of innocents under the rubble in Tehran or Rafah, it writes about The New Middle East” with a cover strikingly similar to the one it used to propagandise regime change in Iraq 22 years ago.
But this is not 2003. After decades of war, and livestreamed genocide, most Americans no longer buy into the old slogans and distortions. When Israel attacked Iran, a poll showed that only 16 percent of US respondents supported the US joining the war. After Trump ordered the air strikes, another poll confirmed this resistance to manufactured consent: only 36 percent of respondents supported the move, and only 32 percent supported continuing the bombardment
The failure to manufacture consent for war with Iran reveals a profound shift in the American consciousness. Americans remember the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis dead and an entire region in flames. They remember the lies about weapons of mass destruction and democracy and the result: the thousands of American soldiers dead and the tens of thousands maimed. They remember the humiliating retreat from Afghanistan after 20 years of war and the never-ending bloody entanglement in Iraq.
At home, Americans are told there is no money for housing, healthcare, or education, but there is always money for bombs, for foreign occupations, for further militarisation. More than 700,000 Americans are homeless, more than 40 million live under the official poverty line and more than 27 million have no health insurance. And yet, the US government maintains by far the highest defence budget in the world.
Americans know the precarity they face at home, but they are also increasingly aware of the impact US imperial adventurism has abroad. For 20 months now, they have watched a US-sponsored genocide broadcast live.
They have seen countless times on their phones bloodied Palestinian children pulled from rubble while mainstream media insists, this is Israeli self-defence. The old alchemy of dehumanising victims to excuse their murder has lost its power. The digital age has shattered the monopoly on narrative that once made distant wars feel abstract and necessary. Americans are now increasingly refusing to be moved by the familiar war drumbeat.
The growing fractures in public consent have not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump, ever the opportunist, understands that the American public has no appetite for another war. And so, on June 24, he took to social media to announce, the ceasefire is in effect”, telling Israel to DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,” after the Israeli army continued to attack Iran.
Trump, like so many in the US and Israeli political elites, wants to call himself a peacemaker while waging war. To leaders like him, peace has come to mean something altogether different: the unimpeded freedom to commit genocide and other atrocities while the world watches on.
But they have failed to manufacture our consent. We know what peace is, and it does not come dressed in war. It is not dropped from the sky. Peace can only be achieved where there is freedom. And no matter how many times they strike, the people remain, from Palestine to Iran — unbroken, unbought, and unwilling to kneel to terror.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
The American people are not being told why Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Iran. Yes, Israel was rapidly running out of air-defense interceptors (making it more vulnerable to Iranian attacks.) But that issue is only of secondary importance. The real reason they wanted a ceasefire was because they were getting systematically pulverized and needed to stop the bleeding fast. That’s why Israel ‘threw in the towel’ less than 2 weeks after the opening salvo, because Iran was decimating one target after another with no end in sight. So, Israel capitulated.
Of course, that is not the story we’ve been reading in the western media where there’s no mention of the vast destruction of Israeli strategic targets (by Iranian ballistic missiles); that news has been completely omitted from the mainstream coverage. But that’s why Israel persuaded Trump to find a diplomatic off-ramp; because the losses were beginning to mount and Iran was not ‘letting up.’
Did you know that it is illegal to post videos or photos of buildings that have been struck by Iranian missiles in Israel? In other words, if you publish photos of smoldering buildings, infrastructure or military bases, you will go to jail. This is how the government controls the narrative and convinces the public that they are winning a war they are actually losing. But don’t take my word for it; here’s a video clip of an Israeli newscaster explaining how government censorship is impacting the peoples’ ability to figure out what is going on:
CH13’s Raviv Drucker: We have to say there is a bit of an Iranian aspect to the way we report missile strikes on our side. I’m not talking about the Weizmann Institute, but there were alot of missile hits on IDF bases, on strategic sites, that we still don’t report about to this day. And there’s a clear reason for that, which everyone at home understands. But along that clear reason, it created a situation where people don’t realize how precise the Iranians were and how much damage they caused in many places. We just know about the Weizmann Institute; there are many places we don’t know about. https://twitter.com/SuppressedNws/status/1938336639748624420
Repeat: it created a situation where people don’t realize how precise the Iranians were and how much damage they caused in many places.
What can we glean from this statement?
That Iran’s new generation of ballistic missiles are abundant, precise and lethal. To his credit, the newscaster seems to think that ordinary people deserve to be told about these cutting-edge weapons so they can make informed decisions regarding their own safety. We agree with this view, but we also know that the heavily censored, state-controlled, agenda-driven media is not going to change the way it disseminates information. After all, the media’s objective is not to inform but to shape public opinion.
But we’re getting off-topic. What we want to show is that Israel did not agree to the ceasefire because it had achieved its strategic objectives, but because it was getting hammered and wanted to stop the bleeding. We make that judgement based on a shortlist of the key military, intelligence, industrial, energy, and R&D facilities that were struck by precision guided ballistic missiles that wreaked havoc across Israel.
Keep in mind, Operation True Promise III unleashed no less than 22 salvos of state-of-the-art ballistic missiles (many used for the first time) that delivered withering blows to a number of heavily fortified Israeli sites that were regarded as ‘the most protected military bases in the world.’ Iran’s missiles blew through Israel’s defenses like at every turn reducing their targets to twisted metal and broken blocks of cinder. (One weapons expert estimates that just 5 percent of Iran’s ballistic missiles were intercepted.) This is from an article at Press TV:
Iran destroyed the so-called Israeli Pentagon”, the Kirya military-intelligence complex in central Tel Aviv, which is shown as a smoldering hulk in the few photos published on X. Despite being one of the most heavily fortified locations in the occupied territories, protected by a multilayered shield of Israeli and American defense systems, the complex was unable to repel the Iranian missile barrage in the very first phases of True Promise III….
In Haifa, a precision-guided Iranian missile struck a high-rise building housing branches of the Israeli ministry of interior affairs responsible for internal military coordination. The strike disrupted logistical networks and emergency response systems at the municipal level.Press TV
Iranian missiles also took-out the Aman military intelligence headquarters at the Glilot Mizrah Interchange, near Herzliya. Aman oversees elite spying units such as Unit 8200 (signals intelligence), Unit 504 (human intelligence), and Unit 9900 (geospatial intelligence). The compound also houses Mossad’s operational headquarters—the Israeli regime’s notorious foreign intelligence agency….
Iran also struck the ‘impregnable’ Nevatim Airbase in the Negev desert with over 30 ballistic missiles causing extensive damage that (of course) was not reported. Nevatim houses most of Israel’s F-15s and F-35s although we do not have an estimate of how many of those warplanes were destroyed. Here’s more from Press TV:
Other targeted airbases included Tel Nof and Ben Gurion near Tel Aviv, Ramat David near Haifa, Palmachim on the Mediterranean coast, and Ovda near Eilat.
Iranian missiles, including those used for the first time, targeted the command and control centers of the Israeli military and Mossad in both Tel Aviv and Haifa…..
On June 16, Iranian ballistic missiles hit the Bazan Oil Refinery in Haifa—the regime’s largest fuel processing center, which supplies around 60 percent of its gasoline, 65 percent of diesel, and over 50 percent of its kerosene.
The strikes caused significant damage, forcing the complete shutdown of the refinery and its subsidiaries. The Israeli energy minister later admitted the facility would need major reconstruction, estimating a partial restart no sooner than a month.
A nearby power plant was also damaged, triggering widespread blackouts across central regions of the occupied territories.
On June 23, Iranian missiles struck near a power station in Ashdod, triggering a powerful explosion and localized blackouts. Explosions and outages were also reported near Hadera, where Orot Rabin—Israel’s largest power plant—is located
In addition, Iran directly targeted military-industrial sites involved in recent Israeli aggression. Chief among them was the Rafael Advanced Defense Systems complex north of Haifa—home to multiple factories and R&D buildings that produce key elements of Israel’s military hardware.
Rafael manufactures Iron Dome and David’s Sling missile interceptors, both of which have failed repeatedly in stopping Palestinian and Iranian missiles. It also produces cruise and guided missiles used in strikes against Iran, including Spice kits and Popeye, Rocks, Spike, and Matador missiles.
The Kiryat Gat Industrial Zone—a major center for microprocessor and high-tech military production—was also struck. Iranian strikes reportedly damaged key production lines vital to Israel’s drone and surveillance programs.
Further south, the Gav-Yam Negev Advanced Technologies Park near Beersheba, which hosts firms working in cyberwarfare, AI, and military tech, was not spared. Many of these companies collaborate closely with the Israeli military and the Mossad.
Another high-profile target was the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, south of Tel Aviv. Known for its military R&D and partnerships with Israeli military agencies, the institute suffered devastating damage to key laboratories. Members and professors of the institute confirmed the loss of years’ worth of research. The Weizmann Institute also plays a role in Israel’s clandestine nuclear program, with many of Dimona’s nuclear scientists having graduated from or taught at the institute. Press TV
Let’s summarize: In a little more than a week’s time, Iran struck or obliterated:
The Israeli Pentagon”, the Kirya military-intelligence complex
The Weizmann Institute of Science which plays a role in Israel’s clandestine nuclear program
The Aman military intelligence headquarters at the Glilot Mizrah Interchange, near Herzliya. Aman oversees elite spying units such as Unit 8200 (signals intelligence), Unit 504 (human intelligence), and Unit 9900 (geospatial intelligence).
Branches of the Israeli ministry of interior affairs responsible for internal military coordination
The Mossad’s operational headquarters
Israel’s most protected Nevatim Airbase (and the Tel Nof Airbase)
Ben Gurion Airport (repeatedly) as well as Ramat David, Palmachim and Ovda near Eilat.
The Command-and-Control Centers of the Israeli military and Mossad in both Tel Aviv and Haifa…..
The Bazan Oil Refinery in Haifa—Israel’s largest fuel processing center
A giant power station in Ashdod, triggering a powerful explosion and localized blackouts.
The Rafael Advanced Defense Systems complex north of Haifa—home to multiple factories and R&D buildings that produce key elements of Israel’s military hardware
The Kiryat Gat Industrial Zone—a major center for microprocessor and high-tech military production
The Gav-Yam Negev Advanced Technologies Park near Beersheba, which hosts firms working in cyberwarfare, AI, and military tech.
Tel Aviv at dusk
Get the picture? In just 10 days (June 13 to June 23) the Iranian military meticulously destroyed a sizable portion of Israel’s most prestigious military, intelligence, industrial, energy, and R&D facilities across the country. (Have you read about any of this in the western media?) Had the war continued for another week or two, the Holy Land would have been reduced to a smoldering third world wasteland unfit for human habitation. In short, this was no normal ceasefire. This was a desperate capitulation by an overmatched contender who quickly realized he was punching ‘above his weight’. Here’s how Trump summed it up:
Israel got hit really hard. Those ballistic missiles, boy, they took out a lot of buildings,” Trump told reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday. https://twitter.com/i/status/1937812706599252198
Yes, Israel took a real beating.
We should note that there is no formal agreement between Iran and Israel. (No signed document or explicit commitments) The ceasefire was brokered through back-channel diplomacy, primarily mediated by Qatar. A senior White House official and a diplomat briefed on the talks indicated that Israel agreed to halt strikes if Iran ceased its attacks, and Iran signaled compliance with these terms through Qatari mediation. Trump announced the ceasefire as a complete and total ceasefire” to be phased in over 24 hours, although there have been numerous violations by both sides since the original deal was made on June 23. (Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi initially stated there was no agreement” but indicated Iran would stop its response if Israel held up its end of the bargain.)
The problem, of course, is that the ceasefire is not going to hold because Israel and the US see the truce as merely a way to buy-time to regroup and prepare for the next round of hostilities. (The same as Minsk) Consider the comments of Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz who said the following on Saturday:
This doesn’t sound like a man who is looking for a ‘lasting peace’ or even a temporary end to the fighting. It sounds like someone who’s already settled on a strategy for resuming the hostilities and is merely waiting for the green light (from Bibi) to put the plan into motion.
But what might that plan be, after all, Israel was already employing its top-line military weaponry and advanced air-defense systems. What other tools do they have that could be used to produce a different outcome that the one they just experienced after just 12 days of conflict?
This is where is gets scary because Israel has only two options: Either it draws the United States deeper into the conflict (including the deploying of ground forces) or it ‘goes nuclear’. There is no third option. So, whatever Bibi and his generals have ‘up their sleeve’, it’s going to be of a different force and magnitude than what we saw during the last dust-up. Check out this baffling blurb from the Times of Israel‘s Saturday edition:
After the US strike on Iran earlier this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump agreed on a rapid end to the war in Gaza and expansion of the Abraham Accords, Israel Hayom reports, citing a source familiar with the conversation.”
According to the outlet, Trump and Netanyahu agreed in a phone call that the war in Gaza would end within two weeks. Four Arab states, including the UAE and Egypt, would jointly govern the Gaza Strip in place of Hamas. The terror group’s leadership would be exiled, and all hostages would be released.
However, Arab allies have repeatedly asserted that they will not take part in the postwar rehabilitation of Gaza absent Israeli acquiescence to the Palestinian Authority gaining a foothold in Gaza as part of a pathway to a future two-state solution, but Netanyahu has flatly rejected any PA role in the Strip….
Trump and Netanyahu were joined on the euphoric” call late Monday night by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, says Israel Hayom…. Saudi Arabia and Syria would establish diplomatic ties with Israel, and other Arab and Muslim countries would follow suit…. Israel, for its part, would express its support for a future two-state solution, conditioned on reforms made by the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, the leaders agreed that Washington will recognize Israeli sovereignty in some parts of the West Bank. Times of Israel
People who follow events closely in the Middle East know that nothing in this article is true. There’s not going to be a rapid end to the war in Gaza, there’s not going to be a rapid expansion of the Abraham Accords, and there’s certainly not going to be Israeli support for a two-state solution.
So, what’s going on here, what is the point of this nonsensical propaganda that no one in their right mind is going to believe??
by Rathindra Kuruwita (The Diplomat) Courtesy The Island
Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Prime Minister Narendra Modi
Sri Lanka’s JVP-led NPP government has made a dramatic pivot towards India, even utilizing legislative changes it once vehemently opposed.
On August 19, 2023, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, then an opposition leader, criticized a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that then-President Ranil Wickremesinghe had signed with India. We must have the freedom to freely move our hands and legs! But with this agreement, we will be in a situation where we are unable… to take any political or economic decision” independently, he said in a speech to National People’s Power (NPP) affiliated ex-military personnel.
However, a little over 18 months later, Dissanayake oversaw the signing of a series of agreements with India – including a landmark MoU on defense cooperation – during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s three-day visit to Sri Lanka from April 4 to 6. Overall Seven MoUs were signed during the visit, covering defence, energy, digitalization, healthcare, power grid connectivity, and development assistance. Once these MoUs come into effect, they will push Sri Lanka deeper into India’s orbit, restrict its foreign policy choices and expand India’s footprint in Sri Lanka drastically.
Of these, the MoU on defense cooperation has generated the most debate in Sri Lanka. This is Sri Lanka first such agreement with a foreign power, since the one signed with Great Britain in 1947, which came into effect after independence. The then United National Party (UNP) leadership signed this defense agreement with Britain, fearing that if it was not under the security umbrella of a major power, India would annex Sri Lanka. Marx once wrote history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Ironically, now it’s the NPP, whose main constituent is the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) that has always viewed India as an expansionist power, who has signed the defence pact with a country, whose involvement in Sri Lankan affairs once led it to take up arms in the 1980s.
In the late 1980s, the JVP took up arms against the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987 and the deployment of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). The ensuing violence led to the death of over 60,000 JVP cadres, including the JVP founder Rohana Wijeweera. The NPP signing a defence agreement with India, especially when Modi has shown no interest in resolving Indian fishermen poaching in Sri Lankan waters and the Katchatheevu controversy, marks a profound ideological U-turn.
The ideological shift is made even more starker by the NPP using laws on power and energy that it once opposed to sign an agreement to connect the grids of two countries. When the Ranil Wickremesinghe administration made changes in Sri Lanka’s power and energy laws, the NPP, then in opposition, not only opposed the changes but also challenged them in court and promised to repeal the laws if the NPP came to power. Now in power, the NPP used these very laws to sign the agreement to connect its power grid with India.
Critics argue that the DCA undermines the country’s autonomy. Sri Lanka has entered an agreement with a country that is part of the Quad, a grouping of four nations that came together to counter the rise of China. This grouping has the U.S. as a key partner. A few days before Modi’s arrival in Colombo, the U.S. stationed six B-2 bombers in Diego Garcia in preparation for a military attack on Iran, another all-weather friend of Sri Lanka. The DCA with India draws the country close to the US aligned security axis, undermining NPP’s promise to return to a nonaligned foreign policy.
While the details of the DCA have not been made public, raising concerns of transparency. Before coming into power, the NPP promised transparency in any agreement with a foreign nation. As veteran diplomat and political commentator Dayan Jayatilleka observed in a recent interview in Sundy Observer: When there are contradictions between one’s closest neighbour [India] and one’s closest friend [China], why should we tie-up militarily with either one, instead of striving for balance and equilibrium in our relationships with them, and try to contribute to an equation of equilibrium between them?”
Sri Lanka faces several security challenges that require it to work closely with regional and extra-regional powers. However, rather than enter into defense pacts with individual countries, it must meet these challenges by pushing for a regional security arrangement. This would enable it to protect its sovereignty. It would have been wiser for Sri Lanka to push for a regional security agreement, centered around the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) instead of signing a security pact that makes the country seem like a satrapy of India.
Among other main agreements, a trilateral MoU was signed India, Sri Lanka, and the United Arab Emirates to develop Trincomalee as an energy hub. This involves developing a British-built oil tank farm that is already partially run by state-owned Lanka Indian Oil Corporation. The British Raj considered a foothold in Trincomalee harbor vital for Indian defence, a doctrine that the Indian republic has inherited.
The two sides also signed an MoU on Multi-sectoral Grant Assistance for Eastern Province. One of the three projects launched by Modi during the visit was the Sampur Solar Power Plant, which is a pillar of the Eastern Renewable Energy Zone being established under Sri Lanka’s Long-Term Generation Expansion Plan (LTGEP). It is being developed by Trincomalee Power Company, a joint venture between India’s NTPC Limited and the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB).
This will give India a strong foothold in the Eastern Province, in addition to the island’s Northern Province, where India’s power is entrenched. Now India has influence over two of Sri Lanka’s most geopolitically sensitive regions.
However, long-standing bilateral issues remain unsolved. Sri Lankan waters, Sri Lanka failed to obtain a commitment from India on the long-festering dispute over Indian fishermen poaching in Sri Lankan waters. Modi also did not address Sri Lanka’s unease about claims by Indian politicians about Katchatheevu island.
Beyond these MoUs, India offered to convert 100 million dollars worth of loans into grants.
The recent agreements have significantly deepened Sri Lanka’s strategic and economic entanglement with India. By entering into a defense pact, Sri Lanka has tilted decisively towards a regional power that is itself aligned with broader anti-China coalitions. This alignment has now gone beyond being merely symbolic. The agreements span critical sectors such as energy, defense, and infrastructure, with a strong focus on the Eastern Province, raising serious concerns about sovereignty and strategic autonomy.
On the other hand, the JVP-led NPP government now faces a serious blow to its credibility. The NPP came to power on a platform of transparency, sovereignty, and resistance to foreign domination. Yet, a few months after coming into power, it is now presiding over a dramatic pivot towards India, even utilizing legislative changes it once vehemently opposed. Whether this is pragmatic foreign policy realism or ideological betrayal, it raises uncomfortable questions about the NPP’s future trajectory.
The growing Indian footprint marks a historic turning point in Sri Lanka’s regional posture. And for a party like the JVP — once defined by resistance to Indian intervention — it risks becoming the very thing it once rose up against; a facilitator of foreign entrenchment on Sri Lankan soil.
Colombo, June 29 (Daily Mirror) – The Ministry of Health reported that some 27,932 Dengue cases and 16 deaths were recorded so far this year. The Western Province accounts for 45% of all cases with the Eastern, Sabaragamuwa, and Southern provinces also identified as high-risk zones.
Health authorities have confirmed that several child fatalities have occurred due to the disease.
To combat the spread of Dengue and Chickungunya, the Health Ministry will launch a mosquito control week from June 30 to July 6. Dr. Asela Gunawardena, Director General of Health Services, stated that the programme will target 16 districts, focusing on reducing mosquito density amid increased rainfall from the Southwest monsoon.
The initiative aims to curb further outbreaks as Dengue infections continue to rise in hotspot regions.
The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium in a matter of months,” contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims the US set Tehran’s ambitions back by decades.
Rafael Grossi’s comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported on by CNN, which suggests the United States’ strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.
While the final military and intelligence assessment has yet to come, Trump has repeatedly claimed to have completely and totally obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear program.
The 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran began earlier this month when Israel launched an unprecedented attack it said aimed at preventing Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The US then struck three key Iranian nuclear sites before a ceasefire began. The extent of the damage to Tehran’s nuclear program has been hotly debated ever since.
US military officials have in recent days provided some new information about the planning of the strikes, but offered no new evidence of their effectiveness against Iran’s nuclear program.
Following classified briefings this week, Republican lawmakers acknowledged the US strikes may not have eliminated all of Iran’s nuclear materials – but argued that this was never part of the military’s mission. Severe but not ‘total’ damage
Asked about the different assessments, Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS’s Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan”: This hourglass approach in weapons of mass destruction is not a good idea.”
The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,” he told Brennan, according to a transcript released ahead of the broadcast.
It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it’s not total damage,” Grossi went on to say. Iran has the capacities there; industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.”
Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.
We didn’t see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending.”
CNN has asked the White House for comment on Grossi’s claims.
Grossi stressed the need for the IAEA to be granted access to Iran, to assess nuclear activities. He said Iran had been disclosing information to the agency up until recent Israeli and US strikes, but that there were some things that they were not clarifying to us.”
In this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view,” he said. What I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we had found traces of uranium in some places in Iran, which were not the normal declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y or z? And we were simply not getting credible answers.”
The initial Pentagon assessment said Tehran may have moved some of the enriched uranium out of the sites before they were attacked but Trump has insisted nothing was moved.
It’s logical to presume that when they announce that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it (moving the material). But, as I said, we don’t know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days,” Grossi told Brennan.
Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.
Iran’s parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.
Sri Lanka has reached 70% renewable energy generation during June 2025, the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) said.
Issuing a statement in this regard, CEB noted that for the first time since the early 1990s, Sri Lanka has come full circle in its clean energy journey.
Accordingly, the CEB said it achieved an average of 70% electricity generation from renewable sources during June 2025, while having higher demand than in other months.
CEB further noted that this milestone marks a significant turnaround from the country’s earlier reliance on nearly 100% hydro power, before transitioning to a mixed hydro-thermal system in subsequent decade and reflects CEB’s steady efforts to restore renewable energy dominance in the national grid.
The following summarizes how successive UN High Commissioners for Human Rights have, through their actions and demands, overstepped their mandates, ignored their oath to the UN Charter and violated international law and Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.
Violation of UN Charter Article 2(7): Non-Intervention in Domestic Jurisdiction
The UNHRC/OHCHR have repeatedly intervened in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs without Security Council authorization or Sri Lanka’s consent, violating the principle of sovereign equality.
Demands Demonstrating this Violation:
Louise Arbour (2004-2008): called for arms-length international investigations” during active conflict.
Navi Pillay (2008-2014): demanded repeal of Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), criticized military presence, checkpoints, surveillance in North & East & made statements about land in N & E without evidence. Urged the Government to formulate and rigorously enforce a zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse” by military personnel and to initiate a meaningful and transparent reduction of the military presence to peacetime levels” again creating a notion of a non-existent issue. Called for the implementation of 13a & truth, justice, reprations.
Zeid Al Hassen (2014-2018: insisted on hybrid courts overriding Sri Lanka’s constitutional judicial authority. His attention was on Sri Lanka’s judicial system & during his visit to Sri Lanka he claimed Sri Lanka’s judiciary was highly politicized, unbalanced & unreliable”. He went on to claim that Sri Lanka’s justice system was incapable of handling international crimes emphasizing the need for hybrid courts. It is, I believe, an inescapable reality that Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system is not yet ready to handle these types of crimes … this is why the establishment of a hybrid special court … is so necessary.” Such statements amounted to near contempt of court undermining Sri Lanka’s judiciary’s integrity & public trust. His denouncements directly challenged the independence & authority of Sri Lanka’s highest courts & its judges infringing their constitutional status.
Michelle Bachelet (2018-2022): establishment of Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP/OSLAP) via Resolution 46/1 in 2021 evidence mechanism without Sri Lanka’s approval. It functions as a prosecutorial office. She called for the immediate moratorium for repeal of Prevention of Terrorism Act. She criticized militarization of civilian functions & called for vetting of military officials, urged reduction of military presence & removal of policing or administrative roles by security forces. She demanded swift restoration of autonomy of the judiciary, human rights commission & police oversight bodies. She encouraged member states to pursue universal jurisdiction prosecutions, targeted sanctions (asset freezes/travel bans) against select members of Sri Lanka Armed Forces without authorization of UNSC. She called for investigations into enforces disappearances, reparations for victims.
Volker Türk:(2022-present) Demanded legislative changes to repeal Prevention of Terrorism Act & release detainees, repeal Online Safety Act) legalizing of homosexuality & same sex marriage ignoring cultural and religious norms. Continues to demand removal of military camps, reduction of military, return of lands, reforms to police & security sector.
Note:
The Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP), also known as OSLAP, established by UNHRC Resolution 46/1 (2021), mandates the OHCHR to collect, consolidate, analyze, and preserve information and evidence regarding alleged human rights and humanitarian law violations during and after the Sri Lankan conflict.
SLAP is not the first of its kind; it follows precedents such as the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria (established by UNGA) and the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) (established by UNHRC).
SLAP’s mandate effectively creates a quasi-prosecutorial evidence-gathering mechanism without Sri Lanka’s consent, thereby bypassing the country’s domestic judiciary and undermining its sovereignty (allegedly violating UN Charter Article 2(7) and Sri Lanka’s Constitution). Critics also highlight its selective focus and lack of democratic oversight, arguing it represents a clear instance of UN mandate overreach and interference that contradicts the principle of subsidiarity in international law.
As you can see the emphasis of the High Commissioners ridiculing Sri Lanka’s judiciary, judges & judicial system is to enforce a hybrid court.
Relevant Treaty Violations:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 26: Pacta sunt servanda — parties must perform treaties in good faith. Overstepping mandates breaches this.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 2(1): States have primary duty to protect and promote human rights within their territory. External imposition undermines this.
UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985): The independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed by the state itself; external interference violates this.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 21(3): The will of the people as the basis of authority is to be respected — external imposition disregards democratic sovereignty.
Violation of UN Charter Articles 7 & 22:
Exceeding the OHCHR’s Statutory Mandate
The High Commissioners created or endorsed quasi-judicial investigative mechanisms not authorized by the UN General Assembly or Security Council.
Demands Demonstrating This Violation:
Louise Arbour (2004–2008): called for external inquiries without General Assembly or Security Council mandate. OHCHR does not have authority to establish or endorse investigative panels or quasi-judicial bodies.
Navi Pillay (2008-2014): advocated for independent international inquiries & indirectly promoted ICC referral without UNSC authorization. Created pressure for judicial action, interfered in internal affairs of Sri Lanka & exceeded OHCHR’s mandate limited to monitoring & promotion.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein (2014-2018): Pressed to create hybrid courts with international judges & prosecutors outside UNGA/UNSC mandate. OHCHR is not a judicial or prosecutorial body, to impose judicial structures
Michelle Bachelet (2018-2022): Spearheaded UNHRC Resolution 46/1 & established SLAP/OSLAP – a quasi-prosecutorial evidence-gathering mechanism without Sri Lanka’s consent or UNGA/UNSC authorization. This created an investigatory/prosecutorial function that is not within OHCHR’s legal authority.
Volker Turk (2022-to present) – Continued endorsement & operational support for SLAP/OSLAP & called for international accountability mechanisms without UNGA or UNSC authorization. These continued actions maintaining extrajudicial prosecutorial mechanism beyond OHCHR’s remit is a violation of the UN Charter & UNHRC’s own mandate.
Relevant Treaty and UN Instrument Violations:
UNGA Resolution 60/251: Limits Human Rights Council’s mandate to promotion and dialogue, excluding judicial enforcement.
UN Charter Article 7 & 22: OHCHR is a subsidiary organ with limited functions; unauthorized judicial or prosecutorial actions exceed mandate.
UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990): Fair trial and legal representation are to be protected domestically, not undermined by external panels.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 14: Right to fair trial within one’s own legal system; external judicial mechanisms violate this.
Violation of UN Charter Article 100:
Failure to maintain neutrality and impartiality
High Commissioners have shown consistent bias by focusing solely on Sri Lanka while minimizing LTTE atrocities, aligning with politically motivated diaspora and NGO narratives.
Key Conduct Demonstrating This Violation:
Ignoring accountability of LTTE war crimes and terrorism over 30 years.
Avoiding meetings with Sinhala, Tamil, and Muslim victims of LTTE.
Favoring LTTE-linked activists and ignoring government security officials.
Echoing diaspora and NGO narratives linked to LTTE sympathizers.
Relevant UN Ethical Codes:
UN Staff Regulations and Rules, Regulation 1.2 and Staff Rule 101.2: UN officials must maintain impartiality, neutrality, and act in the interests of the UN alone.
UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979): Requires unbiased investigations and accountability.
UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee Guidelines: Emphasize equal treatment and impartiality in human rights matters.
Additional Relevant Points:
Do UN High Commissioners Take an Oath?
UN High Commissioners for Human Rights are senior UN officials who swear to uphold the UN Charter, Staff Regulations, and Code of Conduct, committing to impartiality, independence, and respect for sovereignty and human rights norms. Violations of these principles breach their professional and legal obligations. Obviously all 5 high commissioners are guilty.
Violation of Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Provisions:
Article 1(1):Sri Lanka is a sovereign, democratic and unitary State.”
Article 2(1):The Republic of Sri Lanka shall be a sovereign Republic.”
Article 3: Sovereignty of the People — In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable…”
Article 4: The exercise of sovereignty shall be through… Parliament, the President and the Judiciary as established by this Constitution.”
Article 9:The Republic shall… protect and foster the Buddhist Sasana and also protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion of all citizens.”
Chapter XV (Articles 105–117): Establishes judiciary independence.
Article 105 (1); Establishes courts for the administration of justice.
Article 107 (2):Protects judicial independence. Ensures independence of the judiciary; Judges can only be removed through parliamentary process on grounds of proven misconduct/incapacity.
Article 111C:Interference with the judiciary is a punishable offense.
Chapter XVI (Articles 118–147): Confers sole and exclusive constitutional jurisdiction on the Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation, validity of legislation, and fundamental rights enforcement.
Article 118:Supreme Court is the highest and final superior court.
Article 120:Supreme Court has sole jurisdiction over constitutional matters.
Article 125:Supreme Court has sole jurisdiction in interpreting the Constitution.
Article 126:Supreme Court has jurisdiction on fundamental rights violations.
Since 2006, UNHRC High Commissioners have violated:
UN Charter Articles 2(7), 7, 22, and 100 by violating sovereignty, exceeding mandates, and lacking impartiality.
International treaty law (Vienna Convention, ICCPR, UDHR, Basic Principles on Judiciary and Lawyers).
Sri Lanka’s Constitution, which affirms sovereignty, judicial independence, cultural/religious protections, and supremacy of national law.
Their persistent external impositions, legal reforms demands, and selective accountability undermine international law, Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, and true reconciliation.
What can Sri Lanka’s Government and Citizens do against this bias:
Legally contest UNHRC/OHCHR overreach citing UN Charter, international treaties, and Sri Lanka’s constitutional provisions.
Publicly expose politicization and mandate abuses through media, social networks, and diplomatic forums.
Engage UN member states and civil society to restore mandate boundaries and impartiality.
Submit credible alternative reports highlighting LTTE atrocities and selective enforcement.
Demand independent oversight of OHCHR actions related to Sri Lanka from 2006 to present.
The Govt of Sri Lanka is elected to uphold the sovereignty & territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Thus, the Govt of Sri Lanka is bound to uphold national sovereignty against the current beyond mandate violations by the UNHRC & OHCHR.
International Law guarantees State Sovereignty and Non-Intervention
United Nations Charter clearly states.
UN Charter Article 2(1): Affirms that the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” This means that all member states, regardless of size or power, possess equal rights and are independent in their internal affairs.
UN Charter Article 2(7): Crucially states: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”
Interpretation: This clearly prohibits UN intervention in domestic matters. Chapter VII allows actions by the Security Council but its powers are not extended to the UNHRC for domestic interference
The Mandate of the UNHRC and OHCHR is Not Prosecutorial or Legislative
The UNHRC and the OHCHR operate within specific mandates that primarily focus on promotion, protection, and cooperation. UNHRC & OHCHR cannot enforce or impose legislative changes/reforms.
What is UNHRC/OHCHR mandated to do: Hold forums for dialogue, standard-setting, monitoring human rights situations, reporting findings, offer technical assistance (if requested), and make non-binding recommendations. Facilitate the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) where states’ human rights records are reviewed.
What UNHRC/OHCHR is NOT MANDATED to do: UNHRC/OHCHR are not international courts with judicial powers. They cannot issue legally binding judgments against states, nor can their resolutions unilaterally impose domestic laws, constitutional amendments, or specific judicial/security sector structures. Their resolutions CANNOT create new legal obligations beyond ratified treaties, nor can they dictate specific legislative outcomes.
UNHRC is undermining Sri Lanka:
A review of UNHRC’s scrutiny of Sri Lanka must be evaluated from legally questionable reports (Darusman, Petrie, OISL) that Sri Lanka has consistently argued against for lack proper mandate and due process,:
Lack of Proper Mandate: These reports were initiated without formal resolutions from the UN General Assembly or the Security Council, raising fundamental questions about their institutional legitimacy. They were leaked.
Reliance on unverified and anonymous information: Critically, these reports allegedly relied heavily on anonymous testimonies, often kept secret for extended periods, precluding Sri Lanka’s right to respond, verify, or cross-examine, thus violating principles of natural justice and fairness.
Denial of Due Process: Sri Lanka was reportedly denied adequate opportunity to engage fully in the processes leading to these reports, contributing to a perception of a pre-determined outcome. The manner that all reports concentrated against Sri Lanka & not its legitimate right to engage in counter-terrorism is noteworthy.
When resolutions and demands are built upon such perceived flawed foundations, their validity and enforceability become inherently questionable from a sovereign state’s perspective.
Specific Instances of Mandate Overreach against Sri Lanka’s Sovereignty:
Analysis of past resolutions and OHCHR demands reveals a pattern that showcases that the UNHRC/OHCHR has gone beyond its legitimate mandate and infringes upon Sri Lanka’s domestic jurisdiction:
The Imposition of the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (OSLAP/SLAP):
The Overreach: Resolutions such as 46/1 (2021) and 51/1 (2022) established and extended the OHCHR’s mandate to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve information and evidence” for future accountability efforts” related to alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This is an administrative office undertaking a quasi-judicial/prosecutorial function.
Why it is Wrong: This mechanism operates externally, unilaterally, and without Sri Lanka’s consent, directly undermining its judicial sovereignty. It pre-judges the capacity of Sri Lanka’s domestic legal system and aims to create a dossier for potential foreign prosecutions, which is a direct infringement on national jurisdiction.
Demands for Specific Judicial Mechanisms and External Involvement:
The Overreach: Resolution 30/1 (2015), despite initial co-sponsorship by a previous administration, explicitly called for a judicial mechanism with… assistance in legal and judicial expertise” which was widely interpreted as demanding hybrid courts and foreign judicial participation.
Why it is Wrong: This dictates the structure of Sri Lanka’s sovereign judiciary and imposes external elements that bypass the nation’s constitutional framework and its inherent right to administer justice within its own borders. Judicial architecture is an intrinsic attribute of state sovereignty.
Dictating Domestic Legislative Repeals and Reforms:
The Overreach: The OHCHR and High Commissioner repeatedly demand the repeal of specific Sri Lankan laws, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), Penal Code 365/365A, the Online Safety Act & even to Change Sri Lanka’s Constitution, and insist on reforms to religious personal laws or the decriminalization of consensual same-sex relations.
Why it is Wrong: While human rights principles advocate for non-discrimination and protection of fundamental freedoms, the direct demand for specific legislative acts by an external body constitutes a clear overreach into the sovereign legislative domain of Sri Lanka’s Parliament. The methods and timelines of such reforms, particularly when touching upon complex social, cultural, or religious issues, are exclusively within the domestic legislative purview.
Disproportionate and Politicized Scrutiny:
The Wrong: Sri Lanka has faced continuous, country-specific resolutions and intense scrutiny for over a decade, often based on reports (Darusman, Petrie, OISL) that Sri Lanka deems fundamentally flawed, unmandated, and relying on unverified sources that deny due process. This continuous focus is seen as disproportionate compared to other nations with similar or more severe alleged human rights issues. Moreover, all of these actions only came about after Sri Lanka ended 30 years of terrorism & questions UNHRC silence before 2009.
Why it is Wrong: This creates a perception of selective justice and politicization, diverting resources and attention from genuine, nationally-owned reconciliation efforts, and violating principles of objectivity, impartiality, and non-selectivity central to the UN’s own human rights framework. The focus on unverified incidents from the 1990s, while large-scale atrocities by the LTTE (e.g., child soldier recruitment, disappearances from detention centers, the mass killing of other Tamil militant leaders & their cadres by LTTE are comparatively downplayed, further highlights this perceived bias.
What the Direct Message to the UNHRC Head and OHCHR Office from the Government of Sri Lanka should be
The Government of Sri Lanka must deliver a clear, principled, and unyielding message to the visiting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office:
The Government of Sri Lanka welcomes your visit and reaffirms its unwavering commitment to upholding human rights for all its citizens, in line with our international obligations. However, this commitment is exercised within the framework of our national sovereignty, a principle fundamental to the United Nations Charter itself.
Therefore, you and your Office must understand and be firmly informed of the following:
Respect for Sovereignty is Non-Negotiable: Sri Lanka, as a sovereign member state of the United Nations, operates under its own Constitution and laws. UN Charter Article 2(7) explicitly prohibits intervention in matters essentially within our domestic jurisdiction. Your mandate, and that of the UNHRC, is promotional and recommendatory; it is not legislative, judicial, or enforcement-oriented.
Rejection of Mandate Overreach: We unequivocally reject any and all demands that fall outside your legitimate mandate. This specifically includes:
The imposition of external evidence-gathering mechanisms (such as the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project), which usurps our national judicial functions and infringes upon our sovereign right to administer justice within our borders.
Dictating the specific structure of our domestic judiciary, including demands for hybrid courts or the inclusion of foreign judges, which are matters solely for Sri Lanka’s constitutional and legislative processes.
Demanding the repeal of specific domestic laws or dictating specific legislative reforms (e.g., the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Online Safety Act, or specific personal laws, or the decriminalization of same-sex relations). The power to legislate rests exclusively with the Parliament of Sri Lanka, reflecting the will of its people.
Insistence on National Ownership: Genuine and sustainable accountability, reconciliation, and reform processes must be nationally owned, designed, and implemented. We are committed to strengthening our own credible domestic mechanisms. Any external demands that bypass or undermine these national efforts are counterproductive and will be resisted.
Addressing Bias and Flawed Foundations: We urge your Office to acknowledge and address the persistent concerns regarding the politicization and selective scrutiny directed at Sri Lanka. Resolutions stemming from reports that lacked proper UNGA/UNSC mandates, relied on unverified, anonymous information, and denied Sri Lanka due process, fundamentally lack legitimacy and are a basis for continued interference. We also recall instances where questionable analyses have been used to unfairly target our armed forces.
Focus on True Justice and Impartiality: If your concern is genuinely for human rights, then it must be universal and impartial. We expect equal attention to the horrific atrocities committed by the proscribed terrorist organization LTTE, including the recruitment of thousands of Tamil child soldiers, the disappearance of thousands from their detention centers like Thunukkai, and widespread massacres of Sinhala, Tamil, and Muslim civilians, along with the brutal killings of rival Tamil groups like TELO. A selective focus, such as a disproportionate emphasis on unverified claims from decades past while ignoring documented mass atrocities by terrorists, casts serious doubt on the impartiality and credibility of your Office.
The Government of Sri Lanka stands ready for constructive engagement that respects its sovereignty and operates within the bounds of established international law. However, any attempts to dictate our internal affairs, impose external mechanisms, or make demands that exceed your mandate will be firmly rejected. Our nation deserves justice and respect for its hard-won peace, not judgment based on a biased and politicized agenda.”
This is the type of statement Sri Lankans expect from its elected Govt. We look forward to such an outcome.
Translation of the poemනීතියේ රං දේවාලයේ මහා පූජකයාගේ වෙඩිල්ල…නීතීඥ අරුණ ලක්සිරි උණවටුන
Offering blooms with both hands Praying for the facticity of the law Went to the golden temple of the law that day…
The bullet that the high priest had Placed through the chest, The altar itself spread became wet with blood…
Took the blood with the pen Brought the 22nd amendment by the temple of attorney’s to correct the offence…
Brutuses all around, But in Sirilaka as far as the eye could see as there is no Caesar and Cleopatra… How could a Mark Antony who dares to tell the truth to the normal people be born…
Translation of the poem නීතියේ රං දේවාලයේ මහා පූජකයාගේ වෙඩිල්ල…
Last Thursday, I had two experiences that starkly illustrated the fundamental differences in responsiveness and accountability between Sri Lanka’s private and public sectors. The contrast was so pronounced, it solidified my long-held belief that the private sector is the true engine keeping this country afloat, while the public sector often feels like a drain on its resources.
My morning started with a truly dreadful cup of “pain tea”—a “new brand we’d decided to try from a local supermarket. It tasted strongly of dried coconut leaves, far from the soothing brew I’d hoped for. Frustrated, I called the customer service number on the packet. No answer. However, just a few hours later, I received a call back from an unknown number. It was the tea company. I explained my predicament, and to their credit, the representative was genuinely surprised, stating it was their first complaint of its kind. He promptly took my location details, and within two hours, he was at my front gate. He offered a refund, which we declined. Instead, he presented us with a different variety of their tea, asking us to sample it and assess its quality. This was proactive, effective, and customer-centric service—a swift resolution born from a clear understanding of brand reputation and customer satisfaction.
Later that same day, I made a second, far less satisfying call. I contacted the Sri Lanka Railway safety department to report a significant safety hazard: the unguarded railway level crossing near my home. This crossing had always been guarded, but suddenly a makeshift placard had appeared, crudely stating, “Gate is unguarded, and road users are to take necessary care while crossing.” There was no official signature or stamp from any authority. My concern was immediate and serious.
When I called the railway safety department, I was met with the meek and subdued voice of a lady who informed me that “the boss was at an important meeting” and would call me back later. Unwilling to leave such a critical safety issue to an indefinite wait, I politely refused and left my mobile number, strongly requesting that her boss call me back as soon as possible. Two days have now passed, and I am yet to receive any feedback from the railway department. The silence is deafening and, frankly, alarming.
This stark contrast perfectly encapsulates my frustration. The private tea company, despite being a profit-driven entity, understood the importance of customer satisfaction and acted with remarkable speed and professionalism. Their prompt action not only resolved my issue but also fostered goodwill. The public sector, on the other hand, displayed a characteristic lack of urgency and accountability regarding a potentially life-threatening safety issue. This casual disregard for public safety, coupled with the “boss is busy” excuse, is precisely why so many of us feel that the public sector, often fueled by taxpayer money and staffed by individuals who benefited from free education, can become insular and unresponsive once they secure their positions. It’s a disheartening reality where essential services are often bogged down by bureaucracy and a palpable lack of proactive engagement.
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has long been accused of double standards, politicization, and selective justice. The UNHRC Head is currently in Sri Lanka on a 3 day visit with a tight schedule. But when that schedule fits in traveling to the North by helicopter to lay flowers for dead LTTE terrorists – we must lodge our protest. This is not a gesture of reconciliation—it is an insult to the victims of LTTE terror. It is a clear violation of the UN’s own stance against glorifying terrorism. We not only take offence but we demand an immediate explanation from the OHCHR office and all parties involved in organizing this itinerary. Why does the UNHRC Head have time to lay flowers for terrorists but not to visit the graves of victims of LTTE? If at all he should be searching the graves of 40,000 claimed to be killed during the last phase, not some unverified grave site of 1990s. We don’t expect a visiting UNHRC head to be laying flowers for terrorists especially when there is a bigger conflict unfolding in the Middle East. If the visiting UNHRC Head’s itinerary includes laying flowers as a symbolic gesture of goodwill for the dead, then he must lay flowers for victims of terror not the terrorists.
A Legacy of Bias: From 2006 to Present: Every UNHRC head since 2006 has demonstrated overt bias against Sri Lanka. Despite the end of a 30-year conflict in 2009—during which the Sri Lankan state defeated one of the world’s most ruthless terrorist organizations, carried out the world’s largest humanitarian rescue operation & rehabilitated & reintegrated close to 12,000 LTTE cadres—the UNHRC has relentlessly pursued Sri Lanka, using flawed reports and unverified allegations, demanding domestic reforms & restructuring to undermine its sovereignty.
The UNHRC appears either unwilling or unable to distinguish between the legitimate right of a sovereign state to carry out counter-terrorism operations and the deliberate, unlawful acts of terrorism committed by LTTE banned by 32 nations. By drawing moral equivalence between a state’s lawful military operations and the LTTE’s brutal terror campaign—and then disproportionately targeting the Government of Sri Lanka for alleged human rights violations—the UNHRC undermines both international law and its own credibility.
Three major reports—the 2011 Darusman Report, 2012 Petrie Report, and 2015 OHCHR Investigation (OISL)—form the backbone of this campaign. All three were:
Initiated without UN General Assembly or Security Council approval
Funded and published under the Secretary-General’s office without mandate
Based on anonymous testimonies sealed for 20 years
Denied Sri Lanka the right to cross-examine or respond
Darusman & Petrie Report were not published officially but leaked to the public
These reports violated UN Charter Articles 2(1), 2(7), 7, 22, and 100, among others. Despite this, successive UNHRC heads weaponized these flawed documents to justify political interference and externally driven reforms.
Selective mourning: glorifying terrorists, ignoring victims The High Commissioner’s decision to lay flowers at a site allegedly linked to 19 unverified deaths (and no confirmed evidence of a mass grave) is not only premature but deeply insulting & absolutely unwarranted. If he wants to lay flowers there are plenty of places to commemorate the dead. How can some unverified site with 19 skeletons be more important than the thousands of innocent lives lost at the hands of the LTTE? From over 300 such attacks by LTTE over 30 years…
149 Buddhists hacked to death at the Sri Maha Bodhi in 1985
600+ unarmed policemen executed by the LTTE in 1990
147 Muslims massacred inside Kattankudy Mosque in 1990
Entire Sinhala and Muslim villages wiped out across the North and East (ethnic cleansing)
113 killed when LTTE attacked Central Bank in 1996
33 student Bhikkhus pulled out of bus & murdered in Aranthalawa 1987
Hundreds of villagers killed in the Kent & Dollar Farms throughout the 1980s
LTTE attacked & bombed buses trains, airports, public places – killing thousands of unarmed innocent civilians. Why can’t the UNHRC head place a single flower for them
Why is the UNHRC not laying flowers at these grave sites? Why does the itinerary ignore these massacres entirely? Why does the UNHRC never meet with the families of these victims?
This is not justice—it is propaganda. It is not human rights—it is human wrongs.
What about Iran-Israel Crisis: At a time when the world is on the edge of a catastrophic regional & global war, with grave human rights violations occurring daily, the UNHRC head has chosen to spend his time attending an event for dead LTTE terrorists in Sri Lanka. This shameful prioritization reveals everything about the UNHRC’s misplaced agenda.
Why is there no emergency session to resolve the Iran-Israel crisis? If Ban Ki Moon could appoint a panel immediately after Sri Lanka’s conflict concluded why doesn’t the sitting UNHRC head do something to address the conflict unfolding in the Middle East – the logistical nightmare that would impact the economies of the entire world. Is this issue not more important than travelling all the way to Sri Lanka to lay flowers for dead LTTE?
Double Standards and Cowardice This pattern of selective accountability shows cowardice. The UNHRC dares to attack small, sovereign nations like Sri Lanka, but refuses to hold powerful countries accountable. Sri Lanka defeated terrorism. That should be acknowledged—not punished.
Meanwhile, those who funded, trained, and armed the LTTE walk free. LTTE are not punished for recruiting children. The families of 5000 missing Sri Lankan soldiers are denied answers. Tamils, Sinhalese & Muslim victims of LTTE never get a hearing in Geneva. Annually, UNHRC ears are only for LTTE fronts & pro-LTTE activists.
Where is the UNHRC’s impartiality? Where is the justice for all?
We Demand Accountability from the UNHRC :
An apology for the selective glorification of LTTE-linked grave sites.
Refusal to visit massacre sites and meet with families of Sinhala, Tamil, and Muslim victims of the LTTE.
A full audit of how the Darusman, Petrie, and OISL reports were commissioned, funded, and used outside of UNGA & UNSC mandate.
A UNGA-led legal review of all resolutions and reports against Sri Lanka.
Reaffirmation that non-international armed conflicts fall under domestic jurisdiction.
Review on how human rights laws have replaced international humanitarian laws for selective justice.
Timeline of UNHRC Targeting Since 2009
2012: Resolution A/HRC/19/2 – the first against SL
2013, 2014: Further resolutions despite domestic reconciliation
2015: OISL Report based on sealed testimonies
2021, 2022, 2023: Renewed resolutions despite no war since 2009
The UNHRC has become a tool of political coercion. If it wishes to restore credibility, it must first respect its own Charter, uphold impartiality, and stop glorifying terrorism under the guise of human rights.
Sri Lanka is not currently a member of the UNHRC and therefore has no vote nor influence over the Council’s resolutions, despite being a subject of repeated and intrusive scrutiny. This makes the ongoing pressure not only unfair but undemocratic
UNHRC/OHCHR unashamedly are showing their bias & double standards because the UN system is ill-equipped to take action against its illegalities. How else did 3 legally questionable reports (Darusman, Petrie, OISL) end up being used against a UN member sovereign state.
Please hand over this letter from citizens of Sri Lanka, who find the visit of your boss (Mr. Volker Turk) to our country, more than amusing. Thanks.
Dear HR Commissioner,
We understand that you are a paid employee of the UNO, tasked with keeping alive, the narrative of war crimes committed by the SL Armed forces. YOU ARE IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME.
You are looking for the proverbial “needle in a haystack” rather than looking for the “elephant 🐘 in the room” You should have been in Sri Lanka in May 2009, when our Armed Forces carried out the world’s largest hostage rescue operation, those held as a human shield to provide cover for that coward, Prabhakaran. Right now you should be in Gaza, where even little children are slaughtered for being potential or future “terrorists” Hospitals and aid workers are targeted, over 60,000 civilians have been murdered etc., etc.
We doubt you will find the “needle” because there is none. Go look for the elephant. It is alive and kicking in GAZA. Good luck
Every successful business begins long before the first sale. It begins with a spark, an idea you can’t stop thinking about. But transforming that idea into something real takes more than passion. It takes planning, structure, and the confidence to take the first step.
If you’re a woman with a dream, perhaps of launching your own salon, café, clothing brand, or even a small-scale home business, start by asking yourself: what problem am I solving, and who truly needs this solution? The clearer your answer, the stronger your foundation.
A business that lasts is one that serves. To be truly sustainable, your idea should address a real need in your community or solve a problem that people face. When your business becomes part of the solution, it naturally builds relevance, loyalty, and long-term value.
From there, give your idea a roadmap. A business plan doesn’t have to be long or complicated, but it must be thoughtful. It should cover the basics: what you’re offering, who your customer is, how you’ll reach them, how much it will cost to operate, and how you’ll sustain it over time. Writing it down helps bring structure to your thinking and shows future partners, banks, or investors that you’re serious.
Once you’ve set your direction, managing your money becomes the next priority. Many small businesses fail not because of weak ideas but because of poor financial discipline. Separate your business income from personal spending. Track your costs, understand your break-even point, and start with simple monthly goals: sell a set number of units, reduce overheads, or commit to saving a portion of your profits. These small practices build resilience.
If you plan to grow or seek funding, financial discipline also builds your credibility. Your CRIB record (Credit Information Bureau) plays a key role when approaching banks. Maintaining a good CRIB score shows consistency and transparency. If you ever struggle with repayment, communicate early with your bank. A timely conversation can make all the difference.
At the same time, it’s important to think beyond today. Many women-led businesses have the potential to reach overseas markets. Whether you’re selling food products, clothing, jewellery, or crafts, your business could become export-ready with the right guidance. Understanding the export certification process and aligning with global standards opens the door to growth far beyond our borders.
Visibility also matters. Even the best product needs the right exposure. If you’re working on a budget, use your voice, because no one can tell your story better than you. Build a presence on social media. Engage with customers directly. Partner with local influencers or vendors. Offer promotions or referral bonuses to increase reach. Utilising social media for your business is no longer optional, it’s essential.
These practical insights were at the heart of a recent session led by Nilendra Vithanage, Chief Manager, Zonal Head – Business Banking at NDB, as part of NDB Bank’s Women’s Entrepreneurship Upskilling Programme. While the programme continues to guide and support women on their journey towards becoming entrepreneurs and exporters, its mission is clear, to make knowledge accessible, relevant, and empowering to any woman ready to take that leap.
NDB Bank remains committed to supporting Sri Lanka’s women, not just as a financial partner but as a catalyst for sustainable growth and resilience. To learn more about the Women’s Entrepreneurship Upskilling Programme, visit https://www.ndbbank.com/banking-on-women/vanithabhimana or contact Thishani at 0765699251.
A representative delegation from the US Institute for Security Governance (ISG) held official meetings with Deputy Minister of Defence Major General Aruna Jayasekara (Retd) and Defence Secretary Air Vice Marshal Sampath Thuyacontha (Retd) on separate occasions recently. Discussions focused on building capacity and military capabilities.
The ISG delegation met with the Deputy Minister of Defence, Major General Aruna Jayasekara (Retd), on yesterday evening (Jun 25), and with the Defence Secretary, Air Vice Marshal Sampath Thuyacontha (Retd), today (26). These high-level engagements aimed to provide an overview of ISG’s ongoing initiatives while seeking further guidance to enhance future collaboration with Sri Lanka’s military institutions.
Discussions during the meetings covered a wide range of areas, including security governance, defence management, operational planning, resource management, logistics, cybersecurity, human capital oversight, and professional military education. The ISG team emphasized the role special educational and professional development programmes in building and sustaining a comprehensive knowledge base and strengthening the capacities.
Both the Deputy Minister and the Defence Secretary commended the International Support Group (ISG) for its instrumental role in strengthening Sri Lanka’s defence sector, particularly in advancing professionalism, institutional efficiency, and human resource development. They acknowledged the ISG’s valuable insights into Sri Lanka’s defence priorities and decision-making processes, which have established a robust foundation for deeper, long-term partnerships.
The visiting ISG team included Regional Project Lead Michael Charles Rembold and Country Project Coordinator Matt Ashley. They were accompanied by U.S. Embassy officials, including Seth Nevis, Assistant Defence Attaché; Lieutenant Commander Ros Larry, Office of the Defence Cooperation Chief.
The discussion underscored the collaborative efforts between ISG and Sri Lankan counterparts, fostering trust and mutual understanding.
In such cases, adult women and men, female and male minors, as well as children, are sold for personal gain without age or gender discrimination. Victims of such deceptions are exploited through prostitution, other forms of sexual exploitation, slavery, organ harvesting, forced labor, labor exploitation, conscription as mercenaries, involvement in cybercrime, and other organized criminal activities.
In order to successfully and systematically address these international challenges, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the National Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force (NAHTTF) in collaboration with the Government of Japan have decided to implement a comprehensive media awareness campaign to raise public awareness of the serious crime and protect Sri Lankan citizens, with the aim of preventing them from becoming victims of such crimes.
Accordingly, it has been decided to disseminate a series of educational short videos and audio clips, created to illustrate the nature of this crime and the unfortunate experiences faced by victims, through television, radio, social media and other electronic audio and visual media.
Commenting on this innovative initiative, Defence Secretary and Head of the National Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force (NAHTTF) Air Vice Marshal Sampath Thuyacontha, emphasized that prevention is a very important aspect in the process of eliminating this crime, and that the objectives of this process are to ensure the safety and security of citizens and foreigners by raising public awareness.
Another important objective of this program is to empower victims who have become victims of organized criminals involved in human trafficking or individuals who have uncovered information about such crimes to stand up and raise their voices fearlessly against these crimes.
Be informed, be alert. For for more information please contact
Ms. Minoli Don, – Head of Security Unit, International Organization for Migration (Sri Lanka) Tel. No. – 0094 777 409 409 Email Address – mdon@iom.int
National Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force (NAHTTF)- Tel. No. – 0768447700
Mr. Asel Kularatne, – Communications Officer, International Organization for Migration (Sri Lanka) Email Address – akularatne@iom.int
The natural gas leakage from Bhatiapar crude oil well continues for 15 days, even though the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) along with an expert team from USA continue working for full dousing of the RDS-147A under Rudrasagar oilfield in Sivasagar district of eastern Assam. The blowout began on 12 June 2025 and uncontrolled leakage compelled nearly 350 families to leave their places for safety reasons. Besides the local villagers living near the old well, the high pressure gas flow impacted the surrounding environment heavily. Lately, the ONGC issued a statement claiming that ‘a significant progress in controlling the well at RDS 147A’ was made. It also added the gas was nontoxic and the volume got reduced posing no extra risk to the villagers living beyond 500 meter radius away.
Lately, the State pollution authority issued a show-cause notice to the ONGC for the activities without securing necessary environmental clearances. Pollution Control Board, Assam (PCBA) in a notice, issued on 21 June, accused the largest crude oil & natural gas exploration and drilling company in India of operating at well number 147 (Bhatiapar–Barichuk area) without securing the mandatory consent to establish (CTE) and consent to operate (CTO) under a number of environmental legislations. The PCBA gave the ONGC authority two weeks to explain why action should not be taken against it. If failed to respond within the stipulated period, the PCBA (under the guidelines of National Green Tribunal) may impose environmental compensation fines (ECF) and other penalties against the ONGC.
Speaking to this writer, PCBA chairman Er Arup Kr Mishra informed that the responsible board officials had confirmed the uncontrolled gas flow from RDS-147A causing pollution to the local environment. The visiting scientists from the PCBA’s central laboratory and RLO- Sivasagar to the location detected that the ONGC authority had neither taken CTE/CTO for the RDS-147A work over drill site nor even intimated the board, stated Mishra, adding that the ONGC Limited, Assam Asset was intimated with various provisions under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016, and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, which were violated while operating a ‘Work Over Drill Site RD147-A’.
Many villagers are worried about the incident, remembering the Baghjan catastrophic gas and oil leak which caught fire subsequently. Well number 5 of the Oil India Limited experienced the gas discharge on 27 May 2020 and it caught fire on 9 June to make the accident one of the worst industrial disasters in India. The gas flow and fire was completely doused on 15 November with the help of an expert team from Canada. The disaster claimed three human lives, sudden evacuation of over 9000 families (and subsequent loss of properties and livelihoods) as well as damaged thousands of hectares of areas belonging to Maguri-Motapung wetland and Dibru-Saikhowa National Park etc.
The destroyed ecosystem will probably need decades to regain its original form. But one can remember, a Guwahati-based journalist (now a popular talk-show host) wrote in a prime English daily newspaper soon after the disaster asserting that the nature in Baghjan had already returned back to its original shape. He also criticized the affected villagers for mishandling the compensation from the OIL authority. No wonder, a public demonstration was organized by local villagers terming the journalist a tout of the oil company for personal gains. It was another kind of disaster for the Asomiya society after the Baghjan tragedy indeed!
Nonetheless, it’s time for India to have an efficient response team to deal with disasters of such magnitudes and avoid national embarrassment in the coming days.
Sri Lanka’s conflict ended in May 2009. The UN that silently watched 30 years of LTTE terror & mayhem did little to prevent civilian killings. Yet when Sri Lankan Government authorized counter-terrorism action against LTTE & eventually LTTE was eliminated, the UN jumps into action calling for accountability! Not stopping there, 3 critical reports became the foundation of a witch hunt against a sovereign UN member state. The so-called international community must look at the breaches of protocol & UN Charter in the 3 reports against Sri Lanka that have clearly no UN mandate. This challenges the legal validity, procedural integrity & evidentiary basis of the 2011 Darusman Report, 2012 Petrie Report & 2015 OISL investigation – all three done under authorization of only then serving UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.
Legal Violations of UN Charter by the UNHRC and OHCHR Actions
Violation of Article 2(1)
Violation of Article 2(7)
Violation of Article 7
Violation of Article 22
Violation of Article 100 (1) & (2)
Violations of the UN Charter
1. Article 2(1) – Sovereign Equality
Selective treatment of Sri Lanka violates the foundational principle of equal sovereignty of states.
The UN has not imposed similar scrutiny on other states involved in comparable or more devastating conflicts (e.g., India, Afghanistan, Gaza).
The first unilateral unmandated report after a conflict had ended creating a precedent.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”—Charter of the United Nations, Article 2, Paragraph
Sovereign equality” means All states, regardless of size, power, wealth, or geopolitical alignment, have equal legal standing and rights in the UN system. No state may be subject to differential treatment, politicized targeting, or selective accountability that is not equally applied to others in similar situations.
Article 2(7) – Non-Interference in Domestic Jurisdiction
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…”— Charter of the United Nations, Article 2, Paragraph 7
This provision is a bedrock principle of international law, protecting the sovereignty and internal affairs of states from unilateral or coercive interference by UN organs or other member states. It:
Restrains the UN from taking action on matters of internal law, governance, and security unless authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
Preserves a state’s right to manage non-international armed conflictswithout foreign political or institutional intrusion.
The UNHRC and OHCHR acted ultra vires by intervening in Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs without Security Council or General Assembly mandate.
Sri Lanka’s internal armed conflict (1980s–2009) was a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) under international law.
UNHRC Resolutions: Repeatedly called for domestic legal reforms, foreign judges, and hybrid courts — all matters within Sri Lanka’s internal constitutional framework.
UNHRC/OHCHR exceeded their mandate by intervening in Sri Lanka’s domestic legal affairs:
Darusman Panel was appointed without intergovernmental approval.
Petrie Report internal unprecedented report
OISL proceeded without Sri Lanka’s consent.
Resolutions called for foreign judges, hybrid courts—matters internal to Sri Lanka’s constitution.
These actions amount to unlawful interference in Sri Lanka’s domestic jurisdiction, in direct violation of Article 2(7). No comparable measures were imposed on states with ongoing or recent internal conflicts (e.g., India, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Colombia).
Articles 7 & 22 – Legal Basis for creating UN bodies
Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established in accordance with the present Charter.”— UN Charter, Article 7(2)
The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.”— UN Charter, Article 22
These two articles form the exclusive legal basis for establishing:
Fact-finding missions
Investigatory panels
Subsidiary mechanisms
Only the General Assembly or Security Council may law fully authorize a commission, panel, or inquiry with investigatory powers or official status.
However,
The Darusman Panel was appointed unilaterally by the Secretary-General without GA or SC authority, rendering it ultra vires. Who funded this Panel?
As per Articles 7 & 22 only the UNGA or UNSC have the exclusive legal authority to establish UN bodies.
OISL (2015): Investigated wartime conduct and governance policies without host state consent, effectively overriding Sri Lanka’s legal autonomy.
Citing reports that were unauthorized, leaked, and methodologically flawed.
Ignoring evidence from independent Tamil groups and families of missing soldiers.
Article 100 (1) – UN Charter – In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization”
Article 100 (2) – UN Charter – Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.”
Article 100 is meant to:
Guarantee the objectivity and neutrality of the UN Secretariat.
Prohibit political influence or pressure from powerful states or lobbying blocs.
Ensure that UN staff act only under the legal framework and authority of UN bodies, not under activist or political agendas.
Timeline of UNHRC Actions vs. Sri Lanka (2009–2025)
How the Darusman Panel Report (2010–2011) violated the UN Charter
How has Petrie Report (2012) violated the above Charters:
How has OISL (2015) violated the above Charters:
19 May 2009: End of war
15 May 2010: Sri Lanka appoints LLRC internal investigation
22 June 2010: Darusman Panel appointed (unauthorized)
2011: Report published
2012: Petrie Report released
2015: OISL launched by OHCHR without consent
2012–2024: Multiple biased UNHRC resolutions based on flawed reports
How the Darusman Panel Report (2010–2011) violated the UN Charter
Timeline of Appointment
22 June 2010: Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announces the formation of a Panel of Experts to advise him on the issue of accountability” during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s conflict. Created unilaterally by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonin 2010, following pressure from:
Certain Western member states
Diaspora lobby groups
UN-affiliated activists
Absence of UNGeneral Assembly or UNSecurity Council Endorsement
No General Assembly resolution or Security Council mandate authorized the Panel.
The Panel wasnot a subsidiary organ under Article 22 of the Charter.
Its creation bypassed intergovernmental review, violating Articles 7 and 22 – lacked binding procedural standards
March 2011: The Panel submits its report.
April 2011: Report is leaked to the public and becomes the unofficial basis for UNHRC Resolution 19/2 (2012).
Anonymous testimonies sealed for 20 years.
Violated ICCPR Article 14 (no right of reply).
Office of Legal Affairs (2011) clarified it was not an official UN investigation – yet it was used to justify formal action.
UNHRC cited it repeatedly, making resolutions from 2012 onwards legally voidable.
Yet, who funded this Panel that the UNSG unilaterally appointed?
How was it quoted by UNHRC/OHCHR Head after it was leaked
The action has set a dangerous precedent to allow the UNSG’s secretariat to function without intergovernmental approval.
This is not a fact-finding mission but an advisory panel. However, it is part of my initiative to ensure accountability.”- Darusman Report, Introduction
Statement by the UN Office of Legal Affairs (2011) on the Darusman Panel –The Secretary-General established the Panel of Experts under his own authority, not as an investigative or fact-finding body. The Panel was not a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly or the Security Council, and its findings do not carry the status of official United Nations investigations.” — , in correspondence and internal clarification to Member States (2011), upon queries from delegations regarding the status of the Panel.
This formal statement confirms that the Panel’s authority is extra-legal under the Charter
How has Petrie Report (2012) violated the above Charters:
Framed as a review of internal UN failures during the final phase of the conflict, it too was leaked and became a vehicle for publicly shaming Sri Lanka — again led by Secretariat staff without intergovernmental oversight.
Leaked and used to shame Sri Lanka publicly.
No procedural transparency; no intergovernmental oversight.
Showed bias by selectively targeting the state and ignoring LTTE atrocities.
Acted as a quasi-judicial condemnation, not an internal review.
Internal review repurposed as a quasi-judicial indictment.
Selective citation of facts and institutional bias.
A continued reluctance to stand up for the rights of people led to a grave failure of the UN during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka.” — Charles Petrie, Panel Chair
Sri Lanka was the only nation to defeat an internationally banned terrorist movement. Sri Lanka was well within its right to take counter-terrorist action.
Sri Lankan forces rescued close to 300,000 civilians in the world’s largest humanitarian rescue operation while simultaneously engaging the LTTE terrorists in hostilities.
Brief Summary: Violations of UN Internal Protocols & Charter by the Petrie Report
Unauthorized Investigation:The Petrie Report was produced without formal approval from the UN General Assembly or Security Council, breaching UN procedural protocols and the authority structures established by the UN Charter.
Impartiality and Independence Compromised:By selectively targeting the Sri Lankan government and ignoring other parties’ actions (like the LTTE), the report violates UN principles of neutrality and fairness outlined in the Charter and internal guidelines.
Procedural Irregularities:The report relies heavily on anonymous and unverified sources, violating established UN protocols on evidence verification, transparency, and due process.
Sovereignty and Non-Interference:Conducting investigations without the host country’s consent breaches the UN Charter’s respect for state sovereignty and non-intervention.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability:The report’s opaque methodology and failure to disclose investigative procedures contravene UN standards for accountability and transparency.
It was leaked to the public like the Darusman Report.
These violations undermine the legitimacy of the Petrie Report and contravene fundamental UN Charter principles and internal protocols governing investigations.
How has OISL (2015) violated the above Charters:
Initiated by the OHCHR, which falls under the Secretariat, without:
Sri Lanka’s consent
UNGA or UNSC authorization
Relied on anonymous testimonies kept confidential for 20 years
The OHCHR:
Accepted anonymous evidence
Consulted pro-LTTE advocacy groups
Ignored independent Tamil testimonies (e.g., UTHR, Tamil dissidents, survivors of LTTE torture)
Ignored 5000 missing Sri Lankan soldier family testimonies seeking justice
No right to cross-examine or respond.
Methodology lacked transparency.
Biased in conclusions: Overemphasized state culpability; downplayed LTTE terror.
Misused human rights mechanisms.
Witnesses will remain anonymous for 20 years” — OISL Methodology Note
Violations of International Law
ICCPR Article 14: Right to fair hearing was denied.
Principle of Equal Application: Sri Lanka was singled out despite comparative or worse conflicts receiving less scrutiny (Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan).
Customary international law: No state may be investigated without consent in non-international conflicts.
OISL Violations of UN Protocols, Procedures, Treaty Law, and the UN Charter
Lack of Proper Authorization & Mandate Overreach
The OISL investigation was established without explicit endorsement from the UN General Assembly or Security Council, violating UN procedural norms.
Its mandate exceeded the scope allowed under the UN Charter and relevant treaties by conducting a politically charged inquiry rather than a neutral fact-finding mission.
Breach of Sovereignty and Non-Interference
The OISL operated without the full consent or cooperation of the Sri Lankan government, breaching the UN Charter’s core principle of respect for national sovereignty (Article 2.7).
Such unilateral investigations violate customary international law and treaty obligations that require state consent for jurisdiction.
Violation of Due Process and Fair Trial Principles
The OISL relied on anonymous, uncorroborated testimonies and hearsay, ignoring the standards of evidence required by international treaty law and UN investigatory protocols.
It failed to provide affected parties the opportunity to respond or challenge allegations, breaching principles of fairness and natural justice.
Lack of Impartiality and Objectivity
The investigation showed clear bias by disproportionately blaming Sri Lankan government forces while minimizing LTTE atrocities, violating UN principles of neutrality and impartiality.
Such partiality contravenes the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international humanitarian law obligations.
Failure to Comply with UN Internal Procedures
The OISL did not ensure transparency in methodology or allow for independent verification, violating UN procedural guidelines.
It circumvented regular UN investigatory channels and accountability mechanisms outlined in the UN Charter and internal regulations.
Misuse of Human Rights Mechanisms
By politicizing the investigation, the OISL undermined the integrity of UN human rights systems, violating treaty commitments to uphold the rule of law and peaceful dispute resolution.
The OISL investigation into Sri Lanka violated multiple UN protocols, internal procedures, treaty law, and foundational principles of the UN Charter—particularly regarding sovereignty, due process, impartiality, and procedural legitimacy—calling into question its credibility and legitimacy.
Procedural Breaches
No opportunity for Sri Lanka to cross-examine witnesses.
No independent audit or peer review of reports.
Bypassing of traditional UN fact-finding mechanisms.
Evidence from groups such as UTHR, ICRC, and survivors of LTTE atrocities consistently ignored.
Comparative Chart of UN Responses to Global Conflicts (2006–2009)
Conflict
UNSG Panel?
OHCHR Inquiry?
UNSC Mandate?
Host State Consent?
Sri Lanka
Darusman (no mandate)
OISL (no consent)
Gaza
Goldstone (with HRC vote)
Sudan/Darfur
ICC Referral
Afghanistan
NATO/UN Missions
Ignored Documentation from Independent Sources
UTHR Reports(Prof. Rajan Hoole)
ICRC statementson LTTE use of civilians
UNICEF dataon child soldiers
US. State Department reportson LTTE war crimes
Timeline of UNHRC Actions vs. Sri Lanka (2009–2025)
Date
Event
May 2009
End of armed conflict with defeat of LTTE.
May 2009
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visits Sri Lanka and issues joint statement on accountability.
June 2010
SG Ban Ki-moon appoints the Darusman Panel without GA/SC mandate.
March 2011
Darusman Panel submits report.
April 2011
Report is published and widely cited in UNHRC and media.
November 2011
Sri Lanka releases LLRC Report (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission).
March 2012
UNHRC Resolution 19/2 adopted (24–15–8) — based primarily on the Darusman Report.
March 2013
Resolution 22/1 adopted (25–13–8).
March 2014
Resolution 25/1 adopted (23–12–12) — calls for international investigation.
March 2014
OHCHR initiates OISL investigation, without Sri Lanka’s consent.
September 2015
OISL Report released with significant reliance on anonymous testimonies.
October 2015
Resolution 30/1 adopted by consensus — Sri Lanka co-sponsors under new government.
March 2017
Resolution 34/1 adopted (renewal of 30/1).
March 2019
Resolution 40/1 adopted by consensus (further time extension).
February 2020
Sri Lanka formally withdraws co-sponsorship of 30/1.
March 2021
Resolution 46/1 adopted (22–11–14) — increase in OHCHR evidence-gathering powers.
Resolution 53/25 adopted (31–3–13), further operationalizing evidence collection.
October 2024
Resolution 57/1 adopted by consensus — latest continuation.
June 2025
UN High Commissioner Volker Türk visits Sri Lanka. Survivors of LTTE atrocities request meeting.
This timeline demonstrates how unverified, unofficial, and unauthorized reports were used to generate a chain of political pressure and legally questionable resolutions — in defiance of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and the spirit of the UN Charter.
Breakdown of UNHRC Country Votes on Sri Lanka Resolutions (2012–2024)
Year
Resolution No.
Yes Votes
No Votes
Abstentions
Key Supporters
Notable Opposers
2012
19/2
24
15
8
USA, UK, India
Russia, China, Cuba
2013
22/1
25
13
8
USA, Germany, Switzerland
Venezuela, Pakistan
2014
25/1
23
12
12
UK, Macedonia, Romania
China, Saudi Arabia
2015
30/1
Consensus
—
—
Sri Lanka co-sponsored
—
2017
34/1
Consensus
—
—
UK, Canada
—
2019
40/1
Not tabled
—
—
—
—
2021
46/1
22
11
14
UK, Germany, Malawi
Pakistan, Bangladesh
2022
51/1
20
7
20
USA, France, Mexico
China, Russia
2023
54/1
21
12
14
Germany, Finland
India (abstained)
This breakdown shows the continued reliance on politicized alliances rather than consensus, undermining the impartiality of resolutions against Sri Lanka.
Inquired into IHL and HR violations by all parties
Examined victim testimonies and forensic evidence
Criminal Investigations & Prosecutions
Ongoing cases against LTTE cadres and some security personnel
Judicial action taken, despite resource and witness protection challenges
Summary of Domestic Legal & Investigative Mechanisms
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)
Established in 2010 by the Sri Lankan government to investigate the final stages of the civil conflict and recommend measures for reconciliation and accountability.
Conducted extensive hearings and gathered testimonies from diverse stakeholders.
Produced a comprehensive report acknowledging wartime challenges, recommending political, social, and institutional reforms, including improving human rights protections and addressing grievances.
Recognized limitations of wartime conduct while emphasizing the necessity of defeating terrorism.
Paranagama Commission (Presidential Commission of Inquiry)
Formed to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights by all parties during the conflict.
Conducted public and closed hearings with broad mandate to scrutinize evidence and testimonies.
Submitted detailed findings to the government, emphasizing the need for lawful conduct during armed conflict and due process.
Recommendations included strengthening domestic accountability frameworks and improving law enforcement capacities.
Criminal Investigations and Prosecution Statistics
Sri Lanka’s law enforcement agencies have actively investigated and prosecuted cases related to conflict-era crimes.
Numerous cases filed involving alleged violations by both state security forces and LTTE operatives.
Domestic courts have adjudicated several high-profile cases, demonstrating commitment to the rule of law.
Statistics reflect ongoing efforts to address accountability within the country’s judicial system, though challenges in witness protection and evidence collection remain.
Comparative UN Response: Global Conflict Standards
Conflict
UNSG Panel?
OHCHR Inquiry?
UNSC Mandate?
Host Consent?
Sri Lanka
Yes (No mandate)
Yes (No consent)
No
No
Gaza
No
Yes (HRC vote)
No
Partial
Darfur
No
No
Yes (ICC Referral)
N/A
Afghanistan
No
No
NATO Mandate
Yes
Ignored Evidence
UTHR Reports (Rajan Hoole)
ICRC documentation on civilian protection
UNICEF: Child recruitment by LTTE
U.S. State Dept. reports on LTTE atrocities
Breakdown of UNHRC Votes on Sri Lanka Resolutions
Year
Resolution
Yes
No
Abstain
Supporters
Opposers
2012
19/2
24
15
8
USA, UK
Russia, China
2013
22/1
25
13
8
Germany, India
Venezuela
2014
25/1
23
12
12
Macedonia
Saudi Arabia
2015
30/1
Consensus
–
–
Sri Lanka (co-sponsored)
–
2021
46/1
22
11
14
Germany, UK
Pakistan, Bangladesh
2023
54/1
21
12
14
Finland
India (abstained)
Final Statement
The UN’s credibility depends on respect for its own Charter. Selective justice, political coercion, and unlawful procedures undermine not only the rights of member states like Sri Lanka, but the legitimacy of international law itself. We urge the United Nations to uphold the law without fear or favour.
Demands for Legal Rectification
Immediate UNGA-led legal review of all Sri Lanka-related UNHRC reports and resolutions.
Retraction or amendment of the Darusman, Petrie and OISL reports.
Investigation into procedural abuse by the OHCHR and relevant officials.
Establishment of a new balanced inquiry into all war-time violations, including those committed by the LTTE and foreign actors.
We call on the United Nations to restore balance, legality, and fairness in its approach to Sri Lanka and similarly affected nations.
My rough English version of what General Ratnayake uttered in Sinhala does not at all do justice to his smart observation. I’ll explain this in a while. Let’s first take a look at the background to the event (namely, Charles Thomas’s ‘Sihinaya’ programme at the Padeniya Purana Rajamaha Viharaya held on May 17, 2025). The Mahanayake Thera’s letter mentioned above was sent to the Viharadhipati of the said Rajamaha Viharaya, Ven. Katumuluwe Sumanaratana Thera, just over a month previously. Let’s wind back a little.
The Most Venerable Tibbatuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera, the Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter of the Siyam Maha Nikaya in Kandy, directed an official letter, a formal injunction, to Venerable Katumuluwe Sri Sumanaratana Nayake Thera of the Padeniya Purana Rajamaha Viharaya at Padeniya about this programme scheduled to be conducted there on May 17, 2025. Now, what did the Mahanayake Thera write to the chief incumbent of the Padeniya Purana Rajamaha Viharaya? The following is my translation of the Mahanayake Thera’s letter dated April 15, 2025 (a photocopy of which was published in ‘ලංකා ලීඩර්’ Lanka Leader on May 27, 2025):
It has been brought to our notice that preparations are being made for a special programme to be conducted, in this holy month of Vesak that commemorates the Three Cardinal Events of the life of the Sammasambuddha, by a person named Charles Thomas at the Padeniya Purana Rajamaha Viharastanaya, which belongs to the Malwatte Chapter and which is at present under your incumbency. This person Charles Thomas has been accused of unethical conversion of Buddhists. We have also been made aware that the local Buddhist public have expressed strong displeasure at this event.
Therefore, we hereby notify you to call off the proposed programme, and to refrain, in the future, from organizing similar events with this person that are likely to cause public agitation.”
Signed/Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera
The Mahanayake/Malwatte Chapter of the Siyam Maha Nikaya
(Please note the use of the ‘royal We’ in this document, which is normal in official communications issued by the Mahanayake Thera; ‘We’ in this context is used not to show plurality, but authority.)
The Mahanayake Thera issued another official letter suspending Katumuluwe Sumanarathana Thera as Chief Judicial Sangha Nayake of Devamedi Hathpaththuwa on May 18, 2025 on learning that the latter had gone ahead with the scheduled event disobeying his explicit instructions. In the letter the Mahanayake stated the reasons for the particular decision (to suspend the Viharadhipathi as Chief Judicial Sangha Nayake) taken by the Karaka Sangha Sabha of the Maha Viharaya under his imprimatur:
First, although Sumanaratana Thera had claimed, by a letter to the Mahanayake Thera dated May 14, 2025, that all the Nayake monks of the region (of Devamedi Hathpaththuwa) had expressed their approval of the programme in question, they later informed the Mahanayake Thera that they had not been made aware of his letter of restraint (issued on April 15, 2025), implying that they would not have given their consent, had they known about it beforehand. Second, the Commissioner General of Buddhist Affairs had, by his letter dated May 16, 2025, in response to many complaints received from various sections of the Buddhist public, asked for a postponement of the programme. The Commissioner General had asked for this until a final decision could be taken, considering the fact that the programme could lead to social disharmony. And, finally, in spite of all these alerts, Katumuluwe Sumanaratana Thera had flouted established conventions in holding the event (on May 17). The Mahanayake Thera expressed strong displeasure at this and went on to suspend Sumanarathana Thera as the Chief Judicial Sangha Nayake of Devamedi Hathpaththuwa.
Let’s with due respect and reverence leave it to the discretion of the Most Venerable Mahanayake Thera of the Siyam Maha Nikaya to take appropriate further action to deal with this obvious case of cynical insubordination on the part of the said monk.
Be that as it may, it is clear that the incumbent monk allowed the disputed event to be held in non-compliance with the Mahanayake Thera’s express instructions against doing so. General Daya Ratnayake’s words should be interpreted in that context. His implicit rejection of what he had been invited to add value to by his graceful presence, he conveyed to the audience through the undisguised sarcasm of:
‘වන අලින් ගම වදින විට බල්ලන් බිරුවාට අලියා කලබල නොවී වගාව කා දමන බව’ ‘When wild elephants raid villages, dogs bark; but they eat up the crops unperturbed’,
where there is no explicit or implicit reference to the Mahanayake Thera. Dogs are small and weak opponents of the elephants, but they do their duty by warning off the elephants and alerting the villagers. The elephants are big and strong and are taking what is not theirs, which is wrong. The subversive forces suspected to be behind Charles Thomas who was, as alleged, hosted by the errant monk are powerful; they are doing what they want (that is, proselytisation/cultural subversion of the Buddhists in this instance) through their agent ignoring the divided and weakened opposition that he happens to encounter.
It must be emphasized at this point that my criticism is actually directed at Katumuluwe Sumanarathana Thera, who should know better than to get a Catholic guest to preach to his Buddhist congregation consisting of his dayaka (donor) upasaka upasikas on whose alms he sustains himself. I don’t at all think that mainstream Christians and Catholics have anything to do with what Charles Thomas is doing or that he is authorized by HH the Cardinal to perform at Buddhist Viharas. So, I sincerely assure them that I am not targeting the Christian/Catholic community or their spiritual leaders. Many a time have I wished the Mahanayake Theras took a leaf out of the Cardinal’s book in looking after the legitimate interests of monks and lay Buddhists by fearlessly asserting their spiritual authority before the rulers.
To General Ratnayake I would like to say this: I am only offering my arbitrary interpretation of your words, as a personal opinion. You might have meant an entirely different thing; but I am sure it could be anything but defamatory of the Maha Sangha, least of all, of the Mahanayake Theras.
The currently operative Republican Constitution with its institution of the executive presidency was promulgated in 1978. However, it was based on the original Republican Constitution of 1972, according to which that post was only a nominal one (that is, the president was a figurehead) and the prime minister (an elected Member of Parliament) exercised executive power. An AI summary of the important Article 9 of the 1978 constitution (about the place given to Buddhism therein) reads as follows: ‘The State is mandated to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana (Buddhist teachings), while also ensuring the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e) to all religions. These rights include freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, ensuring the protection of other religious beliefs alongside Buddhism.’
However, the literal translation of Buddha Sasana as ‘Buddhist teachings’ does not adequately match how the term ‘Buddha Sasana’ is actually interpreted in the Constitution, where it encompasses not only the Buddhist ‘religion’ (Buddhana sasanam = teaching of the Buddhas), but also everything material and institutional that is vitally associated with it like Buddhist shrines, monasteries, pirivenas (bhikkhu educational centres), Buddha images, stupas, Bodhi trees, Buddhist archaeological sites, and the rest. To safeguard the Buddha’s teachings, those objects and institutions must be protected, too. The problem of the increasingly threatened state of the Buddha Sasanaya (especially since 2015 to date) remains to be addressed. Such activities as encroachment on the Buddhist religious space in the form of unethical or coerced conversions, building unwanted prayer halls in Buddhist majority places, need to be stopped peacefully.
What was witnessed at Padeniya Purana Rajamaha Viharaya on May 17, 2025 was an instance of the spirit of Article 9 (its basic purpose) being violated. Even more brazenly intrusive Jerome Fernando’s activities belong to the same category, and are not likely to make for peaceful coexistence or mutually beneficial interactions between Buddhists and Christians/Catholics, the major reason for this being the fundamental differences between Buddhism and Christianity in terms of their doctrines, spiritual concepts and practices. Buddhists may find proselytising irritating at best, and aggressive and discriminatory at worst. The same can be said about Hindus, who are similarly vulnerable to coercive conversion schemes. Both groups face the problem of proselytisation.
But isn’t proselytisation of ‘infidels’ a religious duty of the Christian faithful? This
is paralleled by the principle of da’wah (inviting non-Muslims to Islam) among Muslims.I think that both these concepts come within the purview of freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution. Even this can be easily accommodated in a Buddhist, as well as Hindu, religious environment if the approach adopted is non-coercive, non-aggressive, peaceful, and most important, based on rational conviction. It should also be recognised that Hinduism and Buddhism which are quasi-religions are not protected by such intrinsic safety devices used by real religions as apostasy and blasphemy laws.
Having said that, I for one feel that it is no longer realistic for the Sinhalese Buddhist majority community to look to the government of the day for protecting the Buddha Sasanaya under the prevailing circumstances dominated by highly politicised fundamentalist religious ideologies which are at loggerheads with each other. That heavy responsibility must be borne by the ‘sivvanak pirisa’ (the fourfold community of bhikkhu bhikshuni upasaka upasika/male and female members of the Buddhist clergy and laity respectively). Given that Buddhism is a non-religious religion (a quasi religion) that is most compatible with the principles of secular democratic governance, a well run secular democracy is the best guarantor of the protection of the Buddha Sasanaya.
But there is a serious challenge before them. An inner collapse has been triggered in the Buddhist religious cultural establishment and within the Buddhist community (sivvanak pirisa) due to external pressures from diverse sources: religious, political, economic, social, etc. This is compounded by entrenched corruption within monastic walls in some cases including the palladium of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, the Sri Dalada Maligawa, the Temple of the Tooth Relic. (This is a closely related subject that needs to be dealt with in a separate future essay.)
Let me conclude this present opinion piece with a suggestion drawn from Episode 119 of Lanka Leaders YouTube Channel uploaded a little over a month ago by Abheetha Edirisinghe, a YouTuber who produces well researched videos about subjects of national interest, concerning so-called Brother Charles Thomas’s ‘Sihinaya’ programme held at the Padeniya Purana Rajamaha Viharaya on May 17. According to him, on a previous occasion, the Ministry of Education was reported to have officially asked teachers and schoolchildren to participate in a ‘Sihinaya’ programme that Brother Charles was conducting in a school in Dompe, which suggested that it received ministerial patronage. Edirisinghe feels that Katumuluwe Sumanarathana Thera could have acted the way he did under similar government pressure, in which case, merely suspending Katumuluwe Sumanarathana Thera as Adhikarana Sangha Nayake would not settle the issue. He appeals that the Mahanaya Thera hold a thorough investigation to find out the real nature of the motivation behind the monk’s questionable conduct in hosting that unauthorised event.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk is currently in Sri Lanka inspite of the devastation taking place in Israel, Iran & Gaza. He is scheduled to tour the Northern Province. His visit will put him to the test. Will he meet Tamil families who lost their loved ones to LTTE cruelty or will he like all previous UNHRC Heads give audience only to those who promote the same narratives the LTTE used to justify mass murder?
Thunukkai: The Camp of Horror the UN refused to see
While UN & its entities continue to desperately defend the narrative of 40,000” dead which it is being challenged to prove, the UN is happy to ignore the sites of torture, detention & even executions committed by LTTE.
According to multiple testimonies, backed by research from University Teachers for Human Rights (UTHR-Jaffna):
The LTTE operated a brutal torture and detention facility in Thunukkai, Mullaitivu.
Between 3,000 and 6,000 Tamil civilians were abducted and held without trial.
Many were executed, others died under torture, and the rest were never seen again.
Child soldiers, forcibly conscripted, were made to guard and torture their own community.
Victims included:
Tamil youth who resisted recruitment
Journalists, teachers, clergy
Ordinary civilians accused of being traitors”
So much for claiming to carve a separate state for their own”.
UTHR’s reports describe underground bunkers, hidden camps, and systematic torture run by LTTE’s intelligence wing (Kittu/Thuraiappa Group). These reports were available to the UN from the early 1990s. What did the UN do about them?
Yet not a single OHCHR report—including the Darusman, OISL, or Petrie reports—has cited UTHR’s primary Tamil testimony on these crimes committed by LTTE. Why the omission?
Families Plead for a Meeting — Will Volker Türk Give them a hearing?
The Jaffna Civil Society Center (JCSC) has sent a formal request to Mr. Türk’s delegation:
Survivors of Thunukkai are alive.
Families of those tortured and killed are ready to testify.
Documents have been compiled.
They have waited 16 years for the UN to acknowledge their pain.
They are not state agents. They are not Sinhalese. They are not Muslims. They are Tamils, wrongfully branded traitors” by the LTTE, and then forgotten by the world.
We know the UN is little bothered about Sinhalese or Muslim victims of LTTE. But why omit Tamil victims of LTTE too?
Questions to the UNHRC to Answer
Will the High Commissioner meet these Tamil survivors of LTTE atrocities?
Why has no UN report mentioned Thunukkai, despite UTHR and other Tamil sources providing credible documentation?
Why are only LTTE-aligned or diaspora-linked groups invited to speak at UNHRC sessions?
How can justice be served when half the victims — those killed by the LTTE — are erased from UN records?
What kind of human rights system refuses to even meet the victims of terrorism, while legitimising the grievances of its perpetrators?
Truth, silenced by the UN
UTHR’s reports confirm:
LTTE ran secret prison networks across the Vanni.
Thunukkai, Kilinochchi, and Visvamadu housed thousands of civilians.
Mass killings of Tamil dissenters occurred as early as the late 1980s.
Civilians who tried to escape LTTE areas were shot, sometimes in front of their families.
These are well-documented, Tamil-sourced, and independent.
So why did the OHCHR ignore UTHR in every war crimes narrative it built & happy to accuse the Sri Lanka Armed Forces of war crimes” instead?
Selecting victims” is not justice
Volker Türk’s itinerary, so far, reportedly excludes meetings with Sinhalese and Muslim victims of LTTE terror. That is understandable & nothing to be surprised about. It was a foregone conclusion. However, why is the itinerary ignoring a segment of Tamils who were victims of LTTE?
If that is politically convenient, it would be morally indefensible if he ignores Tamil victims of the LTTE — especially those with documented evidence, survivor testimony, and decades of silence behind them.
A Tamil Mother’s Appeal
They took my son in 2005. We found his name in a UTHR report. No one came to ask us. Not the media. Not the UN. We are Tamil too. Why won’t Mr. Türk speak to us?”
We saw how speeches only spoke of LTTE mothers bewailing their dead terror sons/daughters. It’s a pity the victims of LTTE get shoddy treatment.
Time to be Heard.
The Tamil people were not all with the LTTE. That’s why we have continued to say All Tamils are not LTTE though ALL LTTE were Tamils”. Many Tamils were LTTE’s first victims.
Alfred Duraiappah – the Tamil Mayor of Jaffna.
Tamil Policemen on duty in Jaffna – all killed by LTTE before they turned guns on Sinhalese.
If the UNHRC Head is in Sri Lanka for truth, it must face all of it. If Mr. Volker Türk refuses to meet these survivors, his visit will be remembered as another performance — not a step toward justice.
The ball is in Volker Turks court – we are all watching
In line with its commitment to economic empowerment and environmental conservation NDB Bank has collaborated with the Ministry of Industries to introduce the E-Friends II” Refinance Loan Scheme, a purpose-driven financial facility designed to support industrialists in transforming their operations through sustainable and environmentally responsible practices.
As the nation moves toward a greener future, the demand for responsible manufacturing and cleaner industrial practices has never been greater. In response, the E-Friends II Refinance Loan Scheme offers affordable financial assistance at an attractive annual interest rate of just 6.5%, enabling entrepreneurs to invest in sustainable technologies and practices that reduce pollution, enhance resource efficiency, and promote long-term environmental stewardship.
Eligible entrepreneurs can access loan amounts of up to Rs. 30 million, with a generous repayment period of up to 10 years, giving businesses the flexibility and time required to implement impactful, eco-friendly changes. Whether you’re planning to make your business greener, improve production methods, or invest in energy-saving equipment, this scheme offers the ideal financial support to help protect the environment while advancing your business goals.
The E-Friends II Refinance Loan Scheme supports a wide range of environmentally focused initiatives, including:
Reducing industrial pollution and harmful emissions
Introducing cleaner production technologies and processes
Managing waste more effectively and promoting resource efficiency
Saving energy and adopting renewable energy solutions
Encouraging circular economy principles and sustainable production
Speaking on the launch of the scheme, Indika Ranaweera, Vice President – SME, Middle Markets and Business Banking at NDB Bank stated, “Through this facility, we are enabling Sri Lankan businesses to become not just more competitive, but also more responsible. The E-Friends II Refinance Loan Scheme provides a tangible way for industrialists to contribute to national environmental goals while future-proofing their operations. At NDB, we’re proud to serve as a financial partner that prioritizes both economic growth and sustainability.”
In line with its customer-centric approach, NDB Bank offers expert advisory services and end-to-end support throughout the loan process, from application to disbursement. The Bank’s extensive branch network and dedicated officers ensure that business owners across the island receive timely assistance to realize their sustainability ambitions.
Entrepreneurs interested in applying for the E-Friends II Refinance Loan Scheme are encouraged to visit their nearest NDB branch or speak to their Relationship Manager to learn more about how they can take the next step toward a cleaner, greener, and more resilient future.
සමලිංගික විවාහ අපරාධයක් නොවන බවට පනත් කෙටුම්පතක් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව ඉදිරියේ ඇති බවට එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ මානව හිමිකම් මහ කොමසාරිස් වොල්කර් ටුක් කළ ප්රකාශය අධිකරණ අමාත්ය හර්ෂණ නානායක්කාර ප්රතික්ෂේප කර තිබේ.
