Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) Chief Dr. Deepika Udagama yesterday (03) said investigators should be given to access to the local employee of Switzerland Embassy allegedly abducted close to the diplomatic mission situated on the R.G. Senanayake Mawatha (formerly Gregory’s Road), molested and threatened by a group of unidentified persons on the evening of Nov 25.
Alleging that the assailants had sought information on Inspector Nishantha Silva of the Criminal Investigation Department, given political asylum in Switzerland, Swiss Ambassador Hanspeter Mock steadfastly refused either to hand over the victim to the police or allow the investigators to question her.
Asked whether the police could proceed with investigations without access to the alleged victim, Dr. Udagama said, “The HRCSL position is that an effective investigation required the cooperation and participation of all relevant parties – the victim, any witnesses etc.”
Asked whether she would request the Swiss Ambassador to cooperate/assist ongoing investigations, Dr. Udagama said the responsibilities on the part of the diplomatic mission towards the alleged victim, too, should be taken into consideration. “Recognizing the sensitivities involved including the embassy’s duty towards the safety of its employee, the authorities must provide full assurances of protection to the victim and any witnesses.”
The human rights chief called for a conducive and safe environment for the conducting of investigations so that all parties would be confident of the impartiality of the investigation.
Responding to another query, Dr. Udagama said that the HRCSL was yet to receive Acting IGP C.D. Wickramaratne’s response to her letter dated Nov 28, 2019. She urged the acting IGP to conduct an impartial investigation soon after Swiss Ambassador Mock had brought the alleged incident to the notice of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa in the presence of his foreign affairs advisor former External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris.
Dr. Udagama said that HRCSL lacked authority to investigate allegations of crime. She said: “The Commission’s mandate permits it to only exercise oversight over official investigations to ascertain whether or not such process is in compliance with constitutionally guaranteed rights, especially the guarantee of equal protection of the law to all parties concerned.”
Authoritative sources told The Island that the alleged victim couldn’t be allowed to leave the country without being subjected to investigations. The government expected the Swiss Ambassador Mock to provide access to the alleged victim without further delay.
Meanwhile, former Southern Provincial Council member retired Major. Ajith Prasanna, who conducted 12 hour peace protest opposite the Switzerland embassy on Monday told The Island that a deliberate attempt was being made to discredit Sri Lanka. Attorney-at-law Prasanna said that Switzerland was probably a cat’s paw of bigger powers bent on destabilizing the new administration. Switzerland certainly owed Sri Lanka an explanation as to why Inspector Nishan Silva of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), his wife and three children had been given political asylum within two weeks after the presidential poll. Switzerland fired the first salvo at Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s administration in the run up to the Geneva sessions in March 2020, Maj. Prasanna said. There could be other incidents over the next three months, the former Southern PC member asserted, urging the government to be vigilant. Maj. Prasanna flayed the UNP for backing Swiss claims without being bothered to verify accusations with the government.
The Swiss Ambassador in Sri Lanka has no right to keep a Sri Lankan employee inside the Embassy on the basis that local employees do not enjoy diplomatic privileges, the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) said today.
It leader MP Udaya Gammanpila said under the Clause 38 (2) of the Vienna Convention, locals employed at embassies do not enjoy diplomatic privileges.
The decision whether the employee should give a statement to the police or not should be decided by the Sri Lankan Government and not the Swiss Ambassador. There have been instances where statements have been recorded from those who have been shot and on the brink of death. The decision is up to the Judicial Medical Officer to decide whether this employee should be questioned,” the MP told a news briefing.
He said it was not certain whether she was being detained at the Embassy against her wishes or was staying there voluntarily.
It seems that the Swiss Ambassador is visualising a white van culture and not the Sri Lankan Government. The latest episode of the white van drama comes to light after being directed by the Swiss Ambassador. He says one of the Embassy employees has been abducted by a white van, she has taken ill now and the matter should be probed. However, the Embassy does not even reveal the name of the employee or allow a statement to be obtained from her but calls for action and an investigation on the matter,” the MP said.
The Colombo Chief Magistrate Court, today, ordered Gallia Barrister Francis, the Swiss embassy local official, who was allegedly abducted, to give a statement to the CID before December 9.
Colombo Chief Magistrate Lanka Jayarathna also banned overseas travel on the Swiss Embassy female officer Gallia Barrister Francis until she gives a statement.
Appearing for the CID, IP Ranjith Munasinghe told the court that the Swiss Embassy rejected to reveal the whereabouts of the relevant female officer attached to the Embassy, and also her husband and their two children.
Meanwhile, Senior state counsel Janaka Bandara told the court that the incident would bring an impact on the country as well if it did not happen on a personal ground.
He further pointed out that a statement should be obtained from the particular female officer to investigate whether 100% of the content of the complaint is true and whether there is an invisible group operating behind the incident.
The senior counsel also informed the court that the opportunity to reveal the truth would be lost if the particular female officer leaves the island thereby leaving a black mark on the country.
Having considered the submission made by the Senior State counsel, the Magistrate imposed a travel ban on the female embassy officer and ordered her to appear before the CID and make a statement.
Lawyer Marcel Bosonet (in tie) surrounded by supporters of the accused at the Federal Criminal Court in June 2018
The Swiss Federal Court has ruled that the Tamil Tigers are not a criminal organisation and has acquitted 12 people of charges filed by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).
In its indictment, the OAG had accused the people of violating the Swiss Penal Code by raising funds for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) between 1999 and 2009. After its nine-year investigation, the OAG suspected the accused of financially supporting the World Tamil Coordinating Committee (WTCC).
But in June 2018 the Federal Criminal Court found that the hierarchical link between the LTTE and WTCC could not be sufficiently established. The judges also felt there was not enough proof to consider the LTTE a criminal group.
In April the OAG appealed against the verdict, insisting that the accused had supported a criminal group.
In a decision published on Tuesday the Federal Court upheld the previous ruling, noting that Article 260 in the Swiss Penal Code was designed to combat organised crime of a mafia nature. Since then it has also been applied to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda or the Islamic State (IS) terrorist militia. The LTTE was not regarded as a criminal organisation at the time of the fundraising, stated the Federal Court.
According to the court, those who procured money for the LTTE in Switzerland at that time could not assume that they would later violate the law. Even if it had carried out terrorist attacks, the LTTE’s primary objective was to be recognised as an independent ethnic community.
Around 50,000 people from Sri Lanka live in Switzerland, mostly ethnic Tamils who fled the island’s 30-year civil war that ended in 2009.
Sri Lanka has elected a new President. The victory is nothing that the international community are too gaga over as seen by the manner they have chosen not to even extend congratulations as common courtesy & diplomacy dictates. The surge in popularity of the new leader increasing among those who did not vote for him must be also a thorn to digest to these destabilizing elements. Do the new policy makers understand the threats that exist as well as the new threats likely to increase using every apparatus the international community have under their control? What are the weapons that the international community have under their control? How will they use them and what strategies can Sri Lanka adopt are some of the challenges Sri Lanka, its leaders and even its citizens will immediately have to address.
US is on a pivot to Asia having besieged all other continents round the world. The military apparatus of the US is now engulfing the seas with marine presence, while it is using its other soft weapons both covertly & overtly. Transnational corporations have entered the scene & produced MCC project with a carrot of developing Sri Lanka’s road & rail a camouflage to entice and market it via a $480m grant already spent on numerous legislative changes rolled out as part of the proposals’ pre-conditions. The ACSA and SOFA compliment the MCC and anyone promoting it should well study the impact of implementing all 3 together with the US Peace Corps presence to realize the likelihood of Sri Lanka being transformed into the next Diego Garcia in Asia. This danger should be read with the verdict demanding UK hand over Diego Garcia to the Chagosians and UK’s main political parties carrying opposing views simply as a smokescreen to fool the masses. This US pivot is impacting other countries of Asia too. Has Sri Lanka taking stock of the US pivots taking place in other countries of Asia? Are the issues faced by these countries similar to Sri Lanka? How far does India realize who is a bigger threat eventually – US or China? What risks are India taking that will impact entire Asia? How else will these destabilizing elements try to upset Sri Lanka’s governance? Have we taken stock of the players and the likely scenarios to be launched as well as the likely baits to be used? Have Sri Lanka’s leaders placed these risks and dangers likely to impact Sri Lanka as well as in South Asia, regionally and across entire continent? Do we want to end up like Middle East?
Handling India
Has India’s demands changed since
1970s (using Tamils/LTTE/Indo-Lanka Accord/13a/Trade Agreements etc) Does India
foresee that some of the elements India initially used to its advantage are now
working hand-in-glove with the West (LTTE diaspora/Eelam) in such a scenario
what is the disadvantage to India do encouraging these elements play. Has Sri
Lanka presented these dangers or is India simply pretending not to foresee dangers
in an attempt to exert its own influence in Sri Lanka. Does Sri Lanka have a
policy on India-US-China and other Asian nations as well as against EU-OIC
nations etc? Have we not used our soft power tools to our own advantage? What
is the real role of the foreign ministry and the nation’s think tank in this
exercise?
Have policy makers devised means to guard Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, territorial integrity – our seas, land, resources, assets & our people, our heritage/history from international/external threats & incursions?
The media and NGO network/’civic society’ together with a plethora
of faith-based organizations all of which are funded by western foreign
governments are tasked to do what at one time the CIA did. Many of the locals
co-opted into these units are not completely aware of the exact nature of their
roles for they are simply asked to handle a seemingly innocent task as
gathering information data (ex: a village – age groups/professions/religion/economic
status etc) these put into a database and covering entire Sri Lanka will enable
the foreign mischief makers on what type of destabilizing program can be
launched in these areas to which the foreign-government funded organizations
will be sent to do ‘community-development’ work while using that as a pretext
and a cover the real plan gets slowly laid out. These plans are not something
done over a month-year-or even years – these are well planned out generally to
be effective during an election. It is the same groups of individuals who
converge for candle lit vigils, carrying placards, carrying out well funded
social media programs and well organized country-wide initiatives.
Media has been used to carry out
numerous tarnishing campaigns internationally spreading false stories and
rarely apologizing or correcting distorted versions and then repeating them during
some international conference or session or adding the same distorted version
as disclaimers to any story they write on Sri Lanka.
NGOs all being paid in dollars
and loyal to their paymasters are ever ready to carry out and be mouthpiece for
any initiative to discredit Sri Lanka or its rulers. At present they are making
dossiers of threats to their lives and probably will create scenarios to
justify these ‘threats’ and have them sent to UN or key foreign countries with
the intent of using these documents to show Sri Lanka is a threat to free media
– media outlets and NGOs. Why go to all this trouble – please give asylum to
every person hating Sri Lanka. They would be happier and Sri Lanka would be
happy without the headache of having to deal with their lies and the negative
aura they pollute the country with.
Closer to Geneva we are likely to
see these two mischief makers carry out well-planned and executed kidnappings –
threats and whatever else their fertile imaginations can come out with, have
these videoed, coached to cry and have all documented and electronically
archived and sent to the UNHRC to be produced and have the GOSL held
responsible and become victim of another UN investigation or sanctions. Are
these theatrics like the Swiss affair not drama enacted for Geneva with the
foresight to use against Sri Lanka as a threat of sanctions unless elements of
the UNHRC resolution or MCC are signed. Have Sri Lanka’s policy makers laid out
these threats and challenges and drawn up political and diplomatic strategies
to overcome them. Watch out for new youth movements and trends engulfing our
youth too – all these have sinister plans too.
Do we know who among the media-NGOs-civil society are aligned to destabilizing Sri Lanka?
LTTE Diaspora/ Tamil grievance
We all know that the LTTE
diaspora or foreign governments or for that matter India doesn’t care two hoots
about the Tamils or their grievances but given that Tamils are a minority and
that Tamils played a key role throughout colonial British divide and rule
policy, the Tamils are perfect pawn in a ‘you scratch my back, I will scratch
yours’ type scenario against successive Sri Lankan Governments. How else can
LTTE diaspora fronts function with a carte blanche when LTTE is banned in 32
countries and terrorism financing is a criminal offence in these countries.
Therefore, it is very clear that these elements are a complimentary feature to
West’s and India’s political and diplomatic pressure for their geopolitical
advances. Has Sri Lanka developed a counter strategy to this?
Do we know who amongst the Tamils are aligned to this project?
Islamic fundamentalism
Wherever US goes the Islamic
jihadis follow is nothing we can be naïve not to acknowledge. All of the
Islamic terrorist groups banned by the West are all funded and trained by
western governments and their agents. The 21stApril East Sunder Islamic
terror didn’t happen without a plan and it is no coincidence that immediately
after the attack the $480m ‘grant’ was announced as a ‘gift’. How prepared is
Sri Lanka to handle the latest US pivot pawn in Sri Lanka and how far this
element has bought over Muslim politicians, lawyers and others into their fold
manipulating the ‘Islamic religion’ as a key strategy for allegiance.
Do we know who amongst the Muslims are secretly aligned to this
project?
‘Invisible’ insider traitors
More harmful than any of the
above pawns and puppets used by West/India is the possibility of many others
implanted by them to be ‘innocent’ and harmless inner group functioning within
close ranks of the decision makers to subtly push through the plans innocently
with leaders overlooking the dangers or not been shown the dangers. These are
the most dangerous of players which the current leadership will need to be
watchful of.
We can all be happy with the
meritorious changed taking place across the country. Youth are happily using
their creativity to put some colour to Sri Lanka, islandwide cleaning campaigns
are in place, major policy decisions have taken place but all of this cannot
take the eyes and ears of decision makers from the real dangers being brewed
slowly ahead of Geneva sessions and another crucial elections. Just as the
citizens must be kept abreast of the likely dangers and the scenarios Sri Lanka
will have to face, Sri Lanka’s think tanks must put together the pieces of destabilizing
elements at play working presently in isolation and in silence but will gather
steam and speed closer to Geneva sessions and elections.
How equipped is Sri Lanka’s President and new Government is something we will have to see. We sincerely hope that we can surprise these destabilizing elements with some surprises of our own.
We
are somewhat puzzled. Do those that drafted the Labor & Conservative
manifestos know where they are contesting elections and to whom their
manifestos should addressed? Can both Labour & Conservative Parties explain
why both wish to include in their manifestos assurance to divide Sri Lanka a
sovereign & independent country into two if less than 100,000 Tamils votes
for them – what about the interests of 56.1million British in UK & Wales?
Instead of trying to please less than 100,000 Tamils living in UK how about
offering something to the 48.2million White British too?
UK
elections are to be held on 12 December 2019
The
Labour Party manifesto was launched
Labour Leader Corbyn declared in the
Labor Party Manifesto that his government
We will work through the
UN and the Commonwealth to insist on the protection of human rights for Sri
Lanka’s minority Tamil and Muslim populations.”
Not to be outdone UK Conservative Party in their election
manifesto is pledging to support a two-state solution for Sri Lanka.
We will continue to support
international initiatives to achieve reconciliation, stability and justice
across the world, and in current or former conflict zones such as Cyprus, Sri
Lanka and the Middle East, where we maintain our support for a two-state solution,”
Asians
comprise just 7.5%. Arabs 0.4% (this is according to the 2011 census)
Indians
comprise 2.5% and Sri Lankans would fall into the Other Asian group that
comprises 1.5% (excluding Bangladesh/Pakistan)
This
1.5% numbers 835,720 (though not all are Sri
Lankans and will include other Asian nationalities other than
Indian/Bangladeshi/Pakistanis)
So how many are Tamils amongst this 835,720? The Tamil Information Centre had
estimated that, as of 2007, 170,000 Sri Lankans were resident in the UK. IOM
2011 statistics put Sri Lankan Tamils at 100,000 to 200,000.
UK Jews number 275,000 but Labor seems to be not bothered about
them?
Is it because Corbyn has a history with the LTTE terrorists –
attending their bogus ‘genocide’ day and other functions? In 2015, Corby described Hamas and
Hezbollah as friends” so is it a surprise Corbyn is pals with LTTE terrorists
& their bid for a separate state?
UK
Labour & Conversative Parties should be addressing these issues suffered by
UK population instead of putting lines into their manifestos just because UK
Tamils are lavish in their funding for these parties. No funding can take over
the interests that UK Political Parties have to serve the British electorate
not go dividing countries abroad for money given to run their political
campaigns. Is this the democracy Britain preaches to the world?
Without
promising to divide Sri Lanka, UK Labor & Conservatives need to offer
solutions to UK’s problems
14.3
million people are in poverty in the UK (22%)
4.5 million in the UK are trapped in deep poverty – their income is 50%
below the official breadline – a couple with two children would have an income
of less than £211 a week after housing costs, and a single parent with one
child would be on less than £101.50 a week. (Social Metrics Commission)
There are enough and more problems in the UK that the UK
citizens are suffering. Spend time on resolving these without poking nose into
issues in other countries.
UK saw the ramifications of turning a blind eye to terrorism
resulting in the deaths of innocents just a few days back. Need we remind the
UK that LTTE remains proscribed by UK since 2001 but UK allows LTTE fronts not
only to operate freely but UK MPs are regular VIP guests to these LTTE front
events and UK even allows its Parliament to be used by LTTE fronts for their
meetings. UK sadly does not do anything about these LTTE fronts that make money
from swindling Britishers via credit card scams, UK charity misuse/abuse and
illegal asylum seekers and a host of other illegal acts happening right under
the nose of the UK politicians and leaders.
UK Tamils number just 200,000 – why is UK Labor Party & UK
Conservative Party promising these Tamils something in another country for
their vote in UK?
We all know the
failure of creating ethno-religious states – Kosovo and South Sudan are two
fine examples of braindead decisions that were only for geopolitical purposes
and people of these newly created states are suffering with living conditions
deteriorating and none of the countries that helped them gain ‘independence’
coming forward to assist them. These are good lessons for Tamils who are
flirting with these divisive powerful nations who are only thinking of their
advantage and using Tamils as bait and pawns to achieve a footing in Sri Lanka.
Apparently the UK Conservative Party has withdrawn the inclusion of a two-state solution for Sri Lanka in its manifesto and this shows the shortsightedness of UK politicians where simply because some group forwards funding for their campaign they agree to print anything on their manifesto without looking into its geopolitical ramifications. This serves a lesson to all others falling prey to LTTE terrorist funding their political campaigns
This is not supporting a politician but purely a prescriptive academic exercise in analysing election results which I do after every national election no matter who wins. Surprisingly this time there seems to be a dearth of post election analysts.
Gotabaya’s election victory (52.25%) is the highest in Lankan history. To be rephrased, the highest for any oncoming party. The highest for any challenger.
The historical significance of numbers did surprise me after comparing with past election results. In 1994 Chandrika won 62.5% and in 2010 Mahinda won 58%. But those were not their primary election into power. By November 1994, CBK’s PA had won in August 1994. It was less than 50%. Mahinda first came to power with just 50.3%. Those high figures were their reaffirmations. Even in 1977 UNP managed to win only 50.9%. In 1956, SWRD Bandaranaike’s win was only 39.5%. In 2015 Sirisena won 51.2% which is the second highest for any challenger.
To call a spade a spade, it must also be accepted that despite the highest ever real election win, the winner this time was humble enough to hold a low key ceremony in comparison to his predecessors. There were no large continuing celebrations and he got down to work almost immediately despite a hostile parliament. Hopefully the list of good won’t end there though some signs are up that they might.
Media Unit State Ministry of Technology and Innovation.
State Minister
of Technology and Innovation, Thilanga Sumathipala sated that Scientific
expertise would be made use of, in Steering his Ministry towards transforming
Sri Lanka in to a technology based developed nation. He expressed these ideas
on the occasion of assumption of office at his Ministry yesterday (02) with the
blessing of the Maha Sanga. The Minister further elaborated thus,
In order to attain economic
development based on technology and innovation, we will have to invest in higher
education and advanced technologies, in place of cheap labour. Internationally
renowned Scholars of our own have always laid emphasis on the need to invest in
technology related fields so as to ensure future economic development.
Therefore, we should not limit ourselves to the traditional exports such as
tea, rubber and coconut, but embark on technologically competitive inventions
utilizing intellectual labour.”
The Minister
expressed his intention to work towards the creation of a technology based
society, a prime objective of the government as envisaged in the policy
Statement of H.E. the President, by creating the much needed platform, a task
which would be performed by Ministry in the future. He also expressed his belief
that through investment necessary for the creation of a developed country based
on technology the city of Colombo could be made the capital of Asia in the not
too distance future.
Prof. Sarath
Gunapala an internationally renowned Sri Lankan NASA employee, and Prof.Tissa
Vitharana, former Minister of Science and Technology took part in this event by
delivering special lectures and both expressed their wish to extend
unconditional support for the future initiatives of the Ministry of Technology
and innovation.
Professor Tissa
Vitharana said ,
Even though a number of Advanced
Technologies emerged globally in the recent past, we as a country didnot grasp
them properly. If we are to move from the middle income level, that we are
placed at present, to higher income level we definitely will have to grasp an
advanced technology. Technological products of high end Technologies are
essential to compete in the highly competitive world market. By utilizing such
Technologies, we will be able to add more value to our raw materials. We will be
able to overcome this challenge only by utilizing high end Technologies such as
nanotechnology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, Robotics, and
Mechatronics, while also improving our human resources”
Professor
Sarath Gunapala Said,
Countries like Taiwan and South
Korea have achieved Rapid economic development within a relatively short period
of time, through their investment made in human resources, Science and
Technology sectors. This is a great opportunity for Sri Lanka too. If the future
role of Technology and innovation in properly navigated utilizing high end
Technologies through the intervention of the Ministry of Technology and
Innovation, the economy of Sri Lanka could be elevated from its present status
of being a developing economy to a developed economy”
This event was
attended by political represantatives, Mr. Anura Dissanayake, Secretary to the
Ministry of Higher Education, Technology and Innovation, Mr. Chinthaka
Lokuhetti, former Secretary to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Research
along with ScientistS, Technologists, scholars, artistes and more.
(This article was also submitted to the Island and published there as well on 2-12-2019)
I wish to congratulate the Editor of the Island for his editorial of 2nd December, which articulated exactly what many of us were thinking of, but didn’t quite know how to put in words.When I read those reports of the terrorist pinned down to the ground on the London bridge by several people, and of his being shot by London Police, I asked myself why he was not handcuffed and taken to jail for due process, as well as cross examination to ferret out more details of his terrorist actions?
May be some journalist will point out that since the terrorist did not have a white flag in his hand, he could be legitimately shot! What has happened to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other highly concerned NGOs? Perhaps Sri Lanka’s Friday Forum itself will be writing Epistles to the British High Commissioner for this violation of Human Rights. Is it likely that Good People like Ms. Nimalka Fernando and others would gather some of the Colombo Ladies and go on a whirl-wind tour of England to sensitize the natives on human rights, while stopping on the way to check on the health of Mr. Nishantha Silva who had to flee his country when faced with a terminator!
Will the good folks of the Centre for Policy Alternatives present an alternative interpretation of the London Bridge events, taking the UK off the hook? The wrath of Dr. Deepika Udugama has already descended on the CID, while being very diplomatic with the Swiss Embassy, which wants the CID to cooperate with them without divulging names or showing the person involved. The good Doctor knows that the Swiss are merely doing all this because they are always “neutral” – neutral during Hitler’s Time, and neutral with respect to the LTTE, and neutral with respect to allowing gangsters to deposit money in Swiss banks, because it is “not Swiss” to ask awkward questions. So, even the shooting of the alleged terrorist on London bridge is not something that concerns anyone who takes a “neutral policy”.Is it likely that the UK, in its own shame, withdraw its sponsorship of the human rights investigation that Ms. Samantha Powers and Mr. Mangala Samaraweera took so much trouble to craft out? Will the latter now grant that terrorists can be shot, because that was how it was done even within earshot of the Mother of Parliaments?
If the Australian “Aunti” who taught young Tamil girls how to use Cyanide Kuppi can live with impunity within the shadow of the British House of Parliament, it is clear that in the UK there are two classes of Terrorists, namely Bad Terrorists who should be shot as soon as they are captured, and “Good Terrorists” that the British keep under their Sarong. Britain will one day regret the LTTE terrorists that it has harboured.
Asanga Abeyagoonasekera Courtesy ISAS,National University of Singapore
Summary
The recent Sri Lankan election witnessed the Rajapaksa brothers –
Gotabaya and Mahinda – coming to power. Gotabaya, former secretary of
defence and a technocrat with little political experience, was elected
president while Mahinda, former two-time president who ended the
protracted civil war during his term 10 years ago, was sworn in as prime
minister. The new president faces the twin internal challenges of
balancing nationalist and liberal values and introducing a new political
culture with emphasis on meritocracy and technocracy. On external
relations, past Sri Lankan leaders have leaned towards a single power
for economic support and this superseded everything else. It will be
interesting to see if Gotabaya’s foreign policy will be different from
that of his brother and the other leaders, and if he will be able to
balance the triple sphere of influence – India, China and the United
States – with his ‘neutral’ foreign policy focus.
Introduction
We have not lost in this election. In a way we have won the Southern
vote; we just did not receive the votes from North-East and the
upcountry… I will ensure I will look after all of you.” These were the
departing words of Mahinda Rajapaksa after his presidential loss in
2015. The president who left office came back to power after four years,
this time appointed as prime minister by his brother – Gotabaya
Rajapaksa – a historical political incident where two brothers share the
Executive and the premiership.
In 2015, votes from the ethnic Tamil-dominated former war zone in the
north of the country and Muslim-dominated areas played a key role in
President Maithripala Sirisena’s victory. It took four years for a
Rajapaksa to seize back the top seat by winning a significant percentage
of the Sinhalese voter base. The new president, Gotabaya, secured 52.25
per cent of the votes with a 1.3 million lead, a historic victory
without many votes from the North-East. As articulated by the newly
elected president, I won from the Sinhalese votes; I expected more
votes from the Tamil and Muslim community which I did not receive. I
want them to join now.” He has appealed to them to be a part of his
grand vision to create a prosperous nation with a new political culture,
with meritocracy and technocracy emblazed at the helm.
Reasons for Gotabaya’s Victory
There are three distinct reasons for Gotabaya’s victory. First, the
Sri Lankan economy has been badly managed and the direct effect of
rising costs was felt by the entire country. Second, the flaws in the
bipartisan model introduced in 2015, which gradually evolved into a
complete loss of mutual trust between the Executive and prime minister.
Finally, it was the national security threat that arose from the
extremist terror attack on Easter Sunday earlier this year. Following
the attack, the people’s trust in the government eroded significantly
and reached its lowest ebb when a Parliamentary Select Committee
highlighted serious intelligence gaps and administration flaws in the
government.
In the 2019 presidential election, Sri Lanka was at a crossroads,
pitting the neo-liberals against the nationalists. As a symbolic
gesture, the colour of the new presidential flag depicts dark brown,
signifying the rich soil of the nation. The values stem from the deep
South – the scarf was the symbol the Rajapaksas used to depict their
closeness to the soil, and this had much more strength than any other
political slogans used by their opponents. I am from a southern
Sinhalese Buddhist family and I was educated at a Buddhist school
‘Ananda College’. I will ensure principles of Buddhist values will be at
the forefront in my presidency”, said the newly-elected president at
his inauguration at the Ruwanwelisaya Buddhist shrine, the place where
the ancient Southern Sinhalese Buddhist King Dutugamunu who united the
nation left a magnificent edifice to the entire country.
Adopting Global Best Practices
While embracing history is significant, it is also important to
explore whether history has punished societies that have not evolved.
Alexis de Tocqueville came from another nation to praise America’s
embodiment of progressive political ideals. Nations should adapt best
practices and embrace the values of progressive development in other
nations. Leaders should be quick to adapt best practices and values from
them. Many politicians in Sri Lanka’s recent past spoke about bringing
inspiration from the Singapore model but their words ended up only as
empty promises.
The newly-elected president could enact this change. Perhaps, as a
reflection of this change, Gotabaya, within his first week in office,
reduced the number of cabinet portfolios and established a committee for
future appointments at all government institutional levels.
Sri Lanka’s economic geography matters as much as its political
geography. Most past leaders failed to capitalise on the nation’s
economic and political geographic significance due to their narrow
political principles and their belief in protectionist measures, thereby
missing the opportunity to leap forward and be part of the global
economy and its value chains. Even Singapore defines her geography by
international connectivity.
The balance between national and liberal values is clearly visible in
the Singaporean context. Sri Lanka should develop its capacity to
concentrate and harness the flows of goods, services, resources, money,
technology, information and talent which will make it grow into a large
nation, just like Singapore. For this, Sri Lanka has to go beyond the
ultra-nationalist spirit to embrace what is out there in the world.
The strategy of the new president comes during the significant time
of the 4th Industrial Revolution. The author was present in Davos when
Professor Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum, released
his book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, in 2016, during which time
Sri Lanka’s gross domestic product growth rate was at 4.5 per cent. The
economy is expected to grow at its lowest rate of 2.7 per cent in 2019.
Political instability, followed by a weak security environment, was a
significant factor that has pulled the entire country down. When
compared to nations such as Bangladesh in the South Asian region, which
has managed to stabilise its economy with an eight per cent annual
growth rate, the Sri Lankan economy would need a quick recovery, with a
particular increase in foreign direct investment inflows.
Value of Democracy and Technocracy
Will Gotabaya be able to manage the delicate balance between
ultra-nationalist and liberal economic values? Seen as an efficient
administrative technocrat with little experience in politics, will he
embrace the values of the rich school of democracy in his government?
How will he embrace his brother’s pro-China foreign policy? And will he
be able to create a balance between the triple spheres of influence
–between India, China and the United States? These are some questions
the new leadership will face, and Gotabaya will need to use all of his
statecraft to answer them in the coming months.
One significant internal value the new leader may wish to follow is
technocracy. Sri Lankans are in search of a better government that could
balance democracy and technocracy – an area in which the previous
regime failed miserably. The gap was clearly identified by Gotabaya and
he has promised a government with values of technocracy and meritocracy
under his leadership. In both his election manifesto and at his
inaugural speech, these values were re-emphasised by the president.
Technocracy is the model and policy prescription that was put forward
as a solution for modern democracies by Parag Khanna, a professor at
the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore – he published a
book on the same subject. He explained that there is a lack of technical
experts to solve complex government problems in a democracy.
Technocracy, as a form of leading governing practice to efficiently
govern a polis (the ideal city), was introduced by the Greek philosopher
Plato as the most preferred form of government, which should be led by a
committee of public-spirited guardians”. In such a system, the most
qualified technical experts are chosen based on merit to govern the
nation. This is a model adopted by progressive nations such as
Singapore. According to Parag, Technocratic government is built around
expert analysis and long-term planning, rather than narrow-minded and
short-term populist whims… Real technocracy has the virtues of being
both utilitarian (inclusively seeking the broadest societal benefit) and
meritocratic (with the most qualified and non-corrupt leaders). Instead
of ad hoc and reactive politics, technocracies are where political
science starts to look like something worthy of the term: a rigorous
approach to policy.” What Sri Lanka clearly needs is to steer in this
direction. Indeed, the island state’s new leadership has already
recognised the importance of this model. Accordingly, the
pubic-spirited guardians” will be chosen to address key complex issues
not adequately addressed before.
Foreign Policy Management
Gotabaya is the second leader after Sirimavo Bandaranaike who managed
to become the head of state without much political experience. While
Sirimavo’s domestic policies had limitations, leading to an erosion of
the economy, her foreign policy imperatives were excellent.
On foreign policy, the newly-elected president spelt out his policy
in his election manifesto to maintain friendly relations with other
countries from a standpoint of equality”, and to adopt a non-aligned
policy in all his foreign dealings and work with all friendly nations on
equal terms” . His clear position was that, We will not be part of any
big power rivalry, we will take a neutral position.” Even before his
maiden visit to India, Constantino Xavier, a foreign policy fellow at
Brookings India in New Delhi, explained that Gota will play the China
card, but Beijing is now less inclined to repeat the large financial
investments it did five or 10 years ago, due to growing domestic
opposition and international scrutiny.” Further looking at Indo-Lanka
foreign policy in the context of the greater global strategy at play in
the Indo-Pacific, Xavier stated, Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi’s
ambition to shape the Indo-Pacific great game will fail unless he gets
Gotabaya to play ball and keep China at bay.” It would be wise for India
not to use its closest neighbour in such a manner as described by
Xavier, since a strong and deep Sino-Lanka relationship is also an
essential element in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.
China’s deep economic and infrastructure-driven diplomacy on the
island state cannot be discounted. From South Asia, Sri Lanka was an
initial partner of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – a strategic step
taken by Mahinda during his presidency. China’s goals were explained by
President Xi Jinping in his congratulatory letter to the newly-elected
president: [T]o deepen our practical cooperation within the framework
of the Belt and Road Initiative, to start a new chapter of China-Sri
Lanka Strategic Cooperative Partnership and to bring more tangible
benefits to our two peoples.” During his visit to India from 28 to 30
November 2019, Gotabaya bluntly and rightly expressed the importance of
the strategic asset of the Hambantota port leased out to China during
his interview: [The] Sri Lankan government must have control of all
strategically important projects.” Viewing the lease of the Hambantota
port as an unfruitful exercise, he elaborated on its long-lasting
strategic implications …these 99-year lease agreements [that the
previous government signed] will have an impact on our future.” The
Hambantota port and Chinese infrastructure diplomacy have had many
concerned that Beijing was indulging in ‘debt diplomacy’. Gotabaya has,
however, rejected the claim of a ‘debt trap’ in his same interview—It
is also wrong to say there was a debt trap”—and that the Hambantota port
was leased out due to the government’s inability to finance the
borrowings from the Chinese.
The total Chinese loan percentage is much less than the sovereign
bonds and the debt issue is more of a ‘middle-income trap’ rather than a
‘Chinese debt trap’. The country has advanced from a low-income to
middle-income status, and no longer qualifies for concessional loans
from international institutions. Andrew Small, Transatlantic Fellow at
the German Marshall Fund’s Asia Program and a renowned China expert,
analysed the Sri Lankan debt trap as a data point rather than a trend”,
stating that the perception that China plans to build military bases
through debt-diplomacy is inaccurate”.
Having said that, the new president will have to astutely exercise
his ‘neutral’ foreign policy posture at a time of geopolitical
significance in Sri Lanka’s surrounding environment, especially the
Indian Ocean, where neutrality has its own complexity. Sri Lanka should
not accept binary choices when it comes to the Indo-Pacific or the BRI.
It should be part of both strategies and it should reap maximum benefits
for its people.
Conclusion
Gotabaya is seen by the general Sri Lankan public as a leader who is
capable of delivering on his promises. During his term, Gotabaya will be
faced with the challenge of balancing competing priorities. He needs to
introduce technocracy and meritocracy into the country, but he needs to
balance this by carefully making deep changes to the existing system.
He will need to balance nationalist and liberal policies, adopt best
practices that will connect Sri Lanka to the world and make the small
island gravitationally a large nation. For this, Gotabaya will need to
balance his ‘neutral’ policy stance with regional and global
geopolitical dynamics.
….
Mr Asanga Abeyagoonasekera is the
Director-General of the Institute of National Security Studies, Sri
Lanka under Ministry of Defence. He is the author of Sri Lanka at
Crossroads (2019), published by World Scientific Singapore. He studied
‘Adaptive Leadership’ under Professor Marty Linsky from Harvard Kennedy
School. He can be contacted at asangaaa@gmail.com. The author bears full
responsibility for the facts cited and opinions expressed in this
paper.
Judging by the post-November 17 political discourse, Sri Lanka seems to be experiencing an ‘outbreak of common sense’. Many worthy proposals, emanating from the grassroots, appear to supplement the new President’s task of repairing the economic, national security and social damage caused by yahapalana incompetence and neglect.
The shift of public attention on to ‘issues that matter’ has been helped by the salutary change in the President’s election campaign that desisted from making constitutional change a key promise. The new politic marked a fundamental change from the yahapalana deception founded on abolishing the executive presidency that meant nothing to the long suffering rural populations. Currently, however, the people seem to be generating their own demands for constitutional alteration in the form of repeal of Sections 13 and 19 Amendments. A careful look at the actions necessary for the correction of historical errors shows it is prudent advice, indeed.
A look at the two subject amendments shows that they share much in terms of political circumstances that led to their introduction, the fundamentally undemocratic processes through which they were enacted, and the adverse effects their operation has had on the country’s economic and political infrastructure and the social fabric. These reasons form the basis for the need for urgent repeal of s13 and s19 Amendments at the earliest opportunity the parliamentary process would allow.
As to the origins, the Indo-Lanka Accord—the source of s13 Amendment— to which Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi forced JRJ’s hand, on 29 July 1987, at Colombo, following the ‘parippu drop’ earlier, in June 1987, can be considered the final revenge of the Gandhi family on the disdain JRJ showed towards India, in favour of his almost irrational servility to the US. One of the biggest failures of JRJ since 1977—perhaps only second to the invitation he extended to ‘robber barons’—was his failure to gauge the intensity of Indian acrimony towards his behaviour, owing to the fact that the US was the principal sponsor of Pakistan at the time, and was India’s ideological and political enemy. The Accord was also the handiwork of bureaucrats of South Indian-origin occupying the higher echelons of Indian Foreign and intelligence services at the time.
The attempt to abolish the executive presidency, through the 19th Amendment, similarly did not originate from any burning need: it was a political manoeuvre that resulted from the acquiescence among those behind the 2015 conspiracy that the political circumstances created by the 2009 war victory pushed the presidency beyond their reach. The apparent ‘eternal leader’ of the UNP, Ranil Wickremesinghe, had realised that ‘it will be a cold day in Hell’ before he would be able to win an election, and he had plotted to ‘piggyback’ to power on the back of a common candidate—hopefully someone with a support base larger than that of the failed Sarath Fonseka. His strategy was to become PM and to ‘steal’ presidential powers in order to ward off the familiar experience of being sacked by the president. The construction of the 19th Amendment, including the specific ‘anti-Rajapaksa clauses’ designed to dispel the spectre of peoples’ choice, the Rajapaksa family clearly reflected these motives.
The enactment of the two amendments involved identical, glaring abuses of parliamentary and judicial processes—basically designed to circumvent the fundamental democratic requirement of a referendum—putting their legitimacy and democratic credentials in to serious question.
A brief look at the safeguards around the constitutional alteration process in mature democracies shows the corruption of process involved during the enactment of the 13th and 19th Amendments. Practice in such countries, built around the need to prevent Parliament modifying or altering the original provisions of the constitution —the ‘source’ of Parliamentary authority—includes steps designed to ensure rigorous public scrutiny of any proposal. The process in Australia, as an example, requires proposals to amend the constitution originated in parliament a) be passed by an absolute majority and b) submitted to the electors at a referendum through the issue of a writ by the head of state. The voter scrutiny process is further strengthened by the requirement to provide voters with arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’, authorised by a majority of Members of Parliament who voted in favour and against respectively. The proposals require approval by a majority of voters in a majority of the States, and also by a majority of all the voters who voted, if they are to be implemented. In the US, the authority to amend the Constitution derived from Article V of the Constitution requires an amendment be proposed by the Congress (with a two-thirds majority vote in either House) or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
In Sri Lanka, the 13th Amendment that established a fundamental change of the state architecture — composed of a unitary government with centralised sovereignty and power as per Article 2 of the 1978 constitution— by the creation of Provincial Councils with powers and functions that intersected, or at best duplicated those of the unitary state, was not subjected to any such scrutiny. It was enacted through deliberate manipulation of the judicial process, and the use of coercion and intimidatory tactics to get the required two-thirds majority in parliament. The nine-member Supreme Court was ostensibly divided along ethnic lines on the issue of the need for a referendum, and the requirement of a referendum was averted by the narrowest of majorities, by deleting the two clauses which Justice Parinda Ranasinghe held to require a referendum. The amended bill was never subjected to a fresh review by the Supreme Court. The Bill was enacted on 14 November 1987 following tumultuous parliamentary process that needs no recounting here.
At a practical level, it was enacted against the will of the majority of the people, expressed in a robust protest movement, resulting in 21 deaths. Importantly, the LTTE and the TULF was never committed to it either, and the Indian effort to forcibly enforce the Accord resulted in the loss of nearly 2000 of their soldiers. JRJ’s cunning and desperation saw ‘devolution’ through the 13 Amendment imposed on all provinces with the intention of portraying it as a national measure rather than a special dispensation for the Northern and Eastern Provinces.
The most compelling reason for the repeal of the 13 Amendment however, lies in its demonstrated total ineffectiveness after three decades of operation, to make an iota of difference to the material well-being of the Tamil people in the North and the East. It has only enabled the rise of Colombo Tamils, with no roots in the North, such as C. V. Vigneswaran to power in the provincial administration by promoting chauvinism, and others such as M. A. Sumanthiran, to fuel separatist sentiments with the hope of political purchase.
The worst effects of the 13 Amendment elsewhere on the country have been to create a ridiculously ‘over administered’ country, creating ridiculously high levels of bureaucrats to population ratio anywhere in the world. Yahapalana minister F. Mustapha’s failed gerrymander nearly worsened the situation. Provincial administrations that simply mirror all central government portfolios and operations in impracticably small patches of land have led to inertia. The operational costs of legislative bodies with fleets of vehicles (and fuel) have worsened the plight of the haemorrhaging national economy. In addition, the political culture created by the Provincial Councils has been at the base of violent and corrupt political culture in the country, not to mention their use as the ‘grooming grounds’ for generational politicians. It has also failed miserably as an alleged exercise in furthering democracy, with the electorate showing far less levels of enthusiasm and participation at provincial elections, compared to presidential and parliamentary elections.
This negative record shows there is no rationale for the continuation of the 13th Amendment farce, and it needs to be repealed after addressing any continuing Indian sensitivities. The prospect of any Indian resistance to correcting this anomaly, however, is unlikely in view of current cordial relations and the President’s stance on devolution that has already been conveyed.
Moving on the infamous 19th Amendment enactment process, it was marked by even worse lack of transparency and public information and similar judicial and parliamentary processes. A so-called Concept Paper and a legal draft mentioned, but that were never officially published prior to the official gazettal on 13 March 2016, limited public access to those crucial documents to glimpses gained through leaks to the media. Similar to the 13th Amendment fraud, the Supreme Court challenge to the amended bill was undermined by the addition of a series of amendments added to the text already before Court. The move was a deliberate act designed to limit the Court’s determination on the need for a referendum on a proposed, unpublished list to be passed at the committee stage by the government, denying the public the opportunity to scrutinise. The Bill was taken up for debate on 28 April 2016 and was passed on the same day, denying the parliament scrutiny.
Section 19 Amendment, it must be pointed out, was one of the two ‘disasters’—with the robbery of the Central Bank—that destroyed any remaining credibility of the yahapalana charade during the much touted 100-day programme. The other positive outcome was that the 1978 Constitution remains strongly presidential, bearing testimony to the legendary ineptitude of the mob.
An analysis of the 19th amendment and its position in the country’s constitutional and legal history cannot be complete without a brief look at the Supreme Court decision (SC FR Application No. 351-361/ 2018) of 13 December 2018 that validated the 19th Amendment merely as an amendment that has limited the powers of the president to dissolve parliament. The Court’s determination however, reflected nothing more than the particular standards and methods, and the guides in particular, used in the particular exercise of statutory interpretation:
The court’s reliance on the chosen authorities (recent editions of Maxwell on the interpretation of statutes and N S Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes, supplemented by the court’s own authority in Somawathie v. Weerasinghe), would not have yielded any other outcome than the determination it reached. A colonial text such as Maxwell on the interpretation of statutes — a book originally published in 1875, authored by a committed colonialist named Peter Benson Maxwell — was written to convince the British naysayers to colonialism that the intent of all colonial legislations was to benefit the tribe through exploitation of other domains. (In fact, Maxwell’s next book published just three years later, in 1878, was tellingly titled ‘Our Malay Conquests’). Therefore, according to Maxwell, the ‘intent’ is what justifies all legislation. The issue with s19 however, was that its expressed intent was vastly different from its real intent that was Machiavellian.
Fortunately, that particular interpretation is water under the bridge now and repeal of 19th Amendment at the first available opportunity will redress the situation.
China and Sri Lanka have agreed to speed up the implementation of cooperation on major economic projects, the Chinese Embassy in Sri Lanka said in a statement on Monday.
During a visit by former Chinese Ambassador to Sri Lanka Wu Jianghao, who visited the island nation as the representative of Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, China and Sri Lanka have agreed to further strengthen robust political trust between the two countries and upgrade their pragmatic cooperation, the embassy said.
According to the embassy, the two countries will speed up the implementation of cooperation on big economic projects, including the Colombo Port City and the Hambantota Port, under the existing consensus, and on that basis draw up and promote a new blueprint for future cooperation.
Wu, during his stay in Sri Lanka on Sunday and Monday, paid separate calls on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and other Sri Lankan leaders.
Soon after the
defeat, in Eelam War IV, the separatist forces went into its next phase of
attack, which was UN action against Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was to be
punished for defeating the LTTE and the LTTE was to be exonerated, using
the farce of Human rights”. A separatist war is a political and military
matter. It is not a human rights matter. Therefore this approach is very weak.
But it was the only avenue available. The Security Council would have rejected
the matter outright.
USA and the Tamil Separatist
Movement had known well before the war actually ended that LTTE would lose.
They had the next move ready, which was to erase the victory by showing the war
to be unfair, unjust, unclean and
therefore not a legitimate victory at all.
This was not something that the
local Tamil Separatist Movement could handle. It had to be done by the
USA. USA went to the UN Human Rights
Council in Geneva with a series of Resolutions against the government of Sri
Lanka in 2012, 2013, and 2014.
Then came Resolution 30/1 of October 2015, Promoting reconciliation,
accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka” ( A/HRC/RES/30/11). This
Resolution was drafted by the US, with,
we are told, the concurrence of India and the Tamil Separatist Movement . It was
prepared by Ms Sandra Beidas, formerly of the Amnesty International . It was
supported in Geneva by the
Yahapalana government of Sri Lanka , a puppet government supported by the USA.
The purpose of Resolution 30/1
is to erase the government victory, and bring the Tamil separatist matter onto front stage. This Resolution
is therefore an Eelam Resolution”, not
a human rights one. It starts be referring to three matters which are not relevant to the Eelam War, but are very relevant
to the Tamil Separatist Movement, namely, 13th amendment, 19th amendment and the Yahapalana regime change of 2015.
The Resolution then goes
directly into the issues relating to the
war victory. The Resolution implies that
the war should not have taken place at all. Tamil Separatism was legitimate
.The government of Sri Lanka must
therefore apologize for carrying out a war at all. There should be a
commission for Truth, Justice , reconciliation, reparation and non recurrence.
The inclusion of the term ‘non recurrence ‘ has not received the attention it should.
It means that the state should never again
wage war against the Tamils.
The evidence of
victory should be removed as soon as possible. The Resolution speaks of the removal of high security zones, the
withdrawing of the military from the north, return of land held by the military
to its owners.
The Resolution then
turns to the conduct of the war. Those responsible for violating the rules of
war must be investigated and punished,
said the Resolution. The Resolution implied
that the state army, from top to bottom, was guilty of massive war crimes. That the government
forces were at fault. Eelam War IV was
therefore won by foul means.
It is not possible for Sri Lanka to be proud of this victory. ( Continued)
Latheef
Farook, as usual, goes off on a tangent when writing about the alleged ‘plight’
of the Muslim minority vis-à-vis
the Sinhalese Buddhist majority (Muslims expect positive overtures from
President’’/The Island/November 27, 2019). The title of the piece implies that
the Muslims are experiencing a sense of alienation from the newly elected
president, for which he is somehow responsible and must make amends, according
to the writer. But this is a baseless assumption. Has the new president said or
done anything that causes Muslims to put themselves on their guard against him?
No, he has neither said nor done anything like that. Instead, during his
campaign, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa made a special appeal to the Muslim and Tamil
minority communities to join with the patriotic nonracist mainstream for
electing him the president so he could undertake the nation building task. The
polarized pattern in the voting seen in the polls results shows that both
communities did not respond positively to his cogent appeal for support to the
degree he expected, as he frankly conceded after winning the election with a
majority of over 1.3 million votes. He said that he knew that he could win by
relying on Sinhalese votes alone, but that he wanted the Tamil and Muslim
minority communities to be partners with the national victory. Nevertheless, on
the occasion of his swearing in at the historic Ruwanveli Maha Saeya, the
president elect repeated his urgent request for minority cooperation for
implementing the developmental blueprint contained in his election manifesto; he
stressed the fact that he is president for all Sri Lankans across the country.
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s past services performed at the risk of his life and limb
benefited all Sri Lankans equally, but he polled only 5% of the minority vote,
according to polls analysts. But the principled Gotabhaya, while being known to
be a strict disciplinarian and a tough taskmaster as an administrator, is a
gracious person. Those who bit the hand that fed them need not fear any
discrimination from him (‘I am president for all Sri Lankans alike’). Then, what
could be behind LF’s untenable, simplistic claim that ‘Muslims expect positive
overtures from President’?
The
true situation is contrary to what LF is suggesting. Certain powerful Muslim
politicians are under suspicion regarding their alleged close relations with the
April 21 bombers and their local leaders, who are trying to radicalize sections
of the Muslim youth in Sri Lanka through their fundamentalist Islamic religious
ideology. These politicoes were prominent members of the previous UNP/Yahapalana
rump government with the kingmaking power that the quirks of an abused
parliamentary democratic system conferred on minorities. It was an open secret
that the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) appointed to look into the
bombings was most probably intended to exonerate those Muslim politicians from
charges of sponsoring terrorists.
At
a recent news briefing, the CEO of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) Dilanthe Withanage,
a senior university lecturer in Information Technology and a professional
educational consultant to a number of government agencies over two decades,
remarked how a person from the All Ceylon Jamiyyatul Ulama (ACJU), called to
testify before the PSC, falsely suggested that young Muslims felt a need to take
up arms only after the Aluthgama incident (June 2014). The Aluthgama violence
equally victimized both Muslim and Buddhist citizens of the area. But
anti-Buddhist propaganda apportioned blame only to his organization, the BBS,
and this was what the misinformed and indoctrinated world believed. Actually,
the truth was that those riots started when some Muslim youths threw stones from
what looked like the roof or upper floor of a mosque at a peaceful Buddhist
religious procession passing by (There was a You Tube video to prove this at the
time; it may still be there). The demand made by the BBS, other Buddhist
organizations, and even separately urged by some sensible Muslim leaders, that a
presidential commission be appointed to study the circumstances that led to the
Aluthgama episode was not heeded by both the then and the subsequent Yahapalana
governments, obviously for fear of antagonizing the ordinary Muslims and losing
their votes, by having to reveal the culpability of Muslim extremist elements.
(Incidentally, Gotabhaya will not be unnecessarily constrained by this kind of
unreasonable concerns.) Anyway, the Ulama representative’s claim at the PSC was
tantamount to an attempt to deflect attention from the real culprits behind the
Easter bombings (who were none other than Islamic extremists and their suspected
patrons then in positions of power). LF cannot be unaware of these things. He
must explain to the reader what made him suggest that the president make
‘positive overtures’ to the Muslims in this context. Let’s hope that LF is not
identifying all Muslims with extremism.
What
campaigners representing the SLPP assured the masses who demanded that
associates of terrorists and vandalizers of forest reserves be NOT accommodated
in a future government was that no extremist of any kind should be allowed to
participate in it under any circumstances, which is fair enough. Gotabhaya said
he would not seek an alliance with extremists or give in to their unacceptable
demands even if he had to run the risk of losing the election. He also flatly
rejected the thirteen demands put forward by the TNA. Sajith Premadasa (SP)
seemed to have secretly agreed to these demands in return for TNA support at the
election. Had SP won, this promise would have been fulfilled by now.
During
his first overseas state visit after his inauguration which was to India,
President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa made it clear to the Indian Prime Minister Modi,
who has been insisting that the 13th Amendment be implemented in full, that the
particular amendment was already operational, but that certain clauses such as
that relating to police powers could not be enforced without the concurrence of
the majority; he was ready to negotiate these. He also pointed out that the
devolution mantra repeated over the past seventy years has done nothing to
advance the progress of the nation. It must be clear to any doubting Thomas by
now that Gotabhaya’s approach will be through equitably distributed overall
development for the promotion of which the support of India and other friendly
powers will certainly be welcome. He will be mindful of their concerns as well.
A politically stable economically prosperous Sri Lanka will be beneficial to all
stakeholders, national and global. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa who displayed such
self-conviction and courage before the regional superpower on behalf of all Sri
Lankans, need not make special ‘overtures’ to the Muslim or any other community
for winning their allegiance. He enjoys it already.
While
that is the ground reality, LF pontificates: ‘What the Muslims need is for the
new government to understand their plight, stop violence against them, and
attend to their grievances’. There is no evidence of any violence being done to
Muslims by Sinhalese Buddhists or other non-Muslims. Dilanthe Withanage (DW)
denied even those long-standing previous allegations that the BBS attacked
mosques and other places of worship belonging to non-Buddhists. Such charges
were based on fabrications of propagandists.
By
the way, the truth that much violence perpetrated on traditional Muslims
involving attacks on mosques, corporal punishments, even illegal executions has
been committed by Islamic extremists remains largely unknown outside the
immediate neighbourhood of the victims because of fear-inspired communal
censorship. This came out during pre-poll electioneering by the parties. The BBS
itself established in 2012 and subsequently branded by religious extremists and
separatists and their Western sympathisers and sponsors as a violent Sinhalese
racist, and Buddhist fundamentalist terrorist outfit (‘saffron terror’) is
actually no more than a nonpolitical whiste-blower organization. It is a
complete falsehood that Gotabhaya was behind it. Had its numerous revelations
been investigated appropriately, the April 21 attacks could have been avoided
and those precious lives could have been saved, and the misery of the survivors
and their families could have been prevented. It is the violence of the Islamic
terrorists against non-Muslims and non-compliant Muslims that LF should worry
about, if his own apparent fundamentalist sympathies allow him to do
so.
A
couple of days ago there was news in the free media (Hiru TV) about a young
Muslim family being harassed by their Muslim neighbours for voting for
Gotabhaya. There have been numerous cases of traditional mainstream Muslims
being persecuted by co-ethnic extremists and these hapless Muslim victims
approaching BBS monks for assistance and refuge. Meanwhile hardly any media
channels make these things known outside a limited space that is not served by
vested interests. The Sinhalese Buddhists being a friendless minuscule global
minority have no way to counter the intensely hostile propaganda blitzkriegs
directed against them.
Intentionally
or unintentionally, LF is contributing to the global media campaign of
demonizing the innocent majority community, which is done in order to
destabilize the country by inviting foreign interference in its internal
politics. Sri Lanka has never had an ethnic or religious issue. The current
problems are inflicted on the Lankan population from outside. The defeat of
armed separatism in May 2009 was the brightest moment in post-independence
history up to that point. Usual communal harmony had survived a few isolated
artificially created communal disturbances like those in 1958 and 1983, and the
long drawn out separatist violence of about thirty years that ended in that
year. But foreign vested interests started talking about so-called
reconciliation. But to justify a need for reconciliation, there had to be prior
alienation between the two main communities, but there had been no discernible
alienation between Sinhalese and Tamils even at the times of the worst fighting
during the civil conflict. So, the powers that be have done what they have done
following the 2009 victory, particularly since January 2015. The country
experienced the recent anarchy as a result. Ten years after that epoch-making
event, we are witnessing the first signs of a fresh national resurgence under an
able leader, who will look after the interests of all Sri Lankans, despite the
machinations of parochial minority politicians who are now getting alienated
from their own people, except for some ineffectual feeble voices raised in their
support.
So,
instead of hypocritically calling upon the new government ‘to understand their
(that is, Muslims’) plight, stop violence against them, and attend to their
grievances’ (which, if any, are actually not caused by Sinhalese Buddhists, but
by extremist elements among themselves), LF ought to listen to educated young
Muslim leaders like Mohamad Musammil, the media spokesman of the National
Freedom Front led by Wimal Weerawansa, and Ali Sabry PC, Gotabhaya’s legal
advisor for fifteen years, and other so many fair-minded young Muslims like
them including intrepid young maulavis, and address his intellect and sense of
humanity if he has any, to the benefit of all suffering Sri
Lankans.
Emeritus Professor Ariyasena de Silva of
Moratuwa University, writing in The Island (1st Dec. 2019) suggests the
following.
“[making] blocks one metre long and 0.5 m across … outside
plastered with a thin layer of cement mortar … Compressing the garbage into a
steel casing can also be done with a press made locally. If the blocks are sunk,
at about 0.25 km away from the coast where the depth is roughly about three
meters, a wall of one to two km in length can produce a land area of 0.25 sq km.
Once the wall is built the normal garbage can be dumped as it is collected …
It has to be a job lasting several years, but it can be done in smaller sections
and the land put to some use. Perhaps (growing) coconuts will be the best.
Rainwater storage in the land must also be considered. The equipment can be
totally built by our youth … and it may even be possible to grow some leafy
food like Mukunuwenna.
Those who value the beauty of Sri Lanka’s beaches
will find the proposal quite unacceptable. However, let us examine it
further.
The engineering professor was led to this idea because rubble
from buildings demolished during World War II were used in building the coast
line of the USA. However, since then, our knowledge of the ecosystem and the
inter-relatedness of the web of life has grown by leaps and bounds. Various
international conventions exist regarding what can be disposed in the sea even
within territorial waters.
Almost all countries are party to the
“Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter, 1972 (the London Convention) and the related the 1996 Protocol”. These
agreements are there because what is dumped in Chennai or New York may have
non-local effects even on Sri Lanka’s coasts, and vice versa
Garbage is
not some inert material like rubble from demolished buildings. It is a living
ecosystem full of microbes and bugs. The microbes are feasting on the
bio-degradable components of garbage and producing a lot of greenhouse gases
like methane and carbon dioxide. That is why composting which allows such gases
to escape into the environment (instead of being harvested) is very bad. Such
gases cause global warming. Furthermore, if the garbage is compressed and
encapsulated, the aerobic processes become anaerobic, but gases are produced,
and the blocks proposed by Prof. De Silva will eventually explode or crack open.
Even the garbage compressed inside large open garbage mounds explode from time
to time, as has happened several times in Meethotamulla.
Professor de
Silva envisions that blocks of encapsulated garbage could be used to form a wall
in the sea. From then on, he suggests using the space between the wall and the
sea coast as a landfill for garbage where one can eventually plant coconuts and
even grow “Mukunuwenna”. Urban garbage is rather rich in metal toxins like
cadmium, lead and arsenic, as well as industrial pollutants, petro-chemical
residues, excreted or discarded pharmaceuticals, electronic waste etc. If crops
are grown on soil containing such rotting garbage, or compost made from such
garbage, the toxic substances present therein are also absorbed by the
Mukunuwenna or Murunga grown there. There is also a mechanism known as
phyto-magnification, whereby the toxins accumulate and concentrate in the crops,
sometimes up to a factor of 100 times more. That is, toxins concentrate as you
go up the food chain. So, the Mukunuwenna is even more toxic than the soil
ecosystem.
Your food is only as clean as the soil and water used to grow
crops! Of course, the false propaganda is that all the pollution come from
agrochemicals. Actually, such pollution and toxicity from agrochemicals are
utterly minuscule compared to that of other sources. However, it makes good
propaganda for the “organic food” marketeers who promote their products and
cater to the elite, while destroying the agriculture that feeds the vast
majority of poor humanity. The Yahapalanaya government followed the appalling
agricultural dicta of Ven. Ratana and his minions who claim to get their
“science” from God Natha, and banned the herbicide glyphosate in 2015. Sri
Lanka’s key agricultural sectors are yet to recover from that crippling blow
that cost the country far more than the Bond Scam.
Even if we ignore the
agricultural proposals of growing crops on the garbage disposed landfills on the
sea coast, the project is destined to fail. As a mechanical Engineer, Prof. De
Silva would know that the slow but incessant effect of tides, currents etc., as
well as the tremendously variable dynamic loads from waves in monsoonal and
inter-monsoonal times will take their toll on the garbage wall. Only strong
well-designed breakwalls (aka breakwaters) can face such furious power. Anyone
driving along the southern coastal strip of Sri Lanka will know that efforts at
controlling sea erosion along those coasts have failed. So, what chance has the
proposed wall of garbage against the power and fury of the ocean?
It is
most likely that any such garbage-packed wall will disintegrate within a year
and spew garbage all along the world famous golden coasts of Sri Lanka. In
addition to the irreparable pollution to its own fishery, tourism, its
marine-coastal ecosystem, many international treaties of the sea will be
contravened.
In Canada and many other countries where the integrity of
marine ecosystems have come to be greatly valued, what can be disposed in the
ocean are strictly controlled. They are listed in Schedule 5 of the Canadian
Environmental Protections act. Some examples of acceptable disposal at sea
are:
1. the sand at the bottom of a channel is dredged and disposed at
sea to help control rising water levels and increase ship safety.
2. a
fish plant in a remote location disposes the fish waste (flesh, skin, bones,
entrails, shells etc.) at sea as there is no other option
3. a ship is
cleaned and sunk at sea when no ship recycling facility is available
4. a
rock slide occurs on a remote road along the coast, and the rocks are disposed
of at sea for efficiency in cleaning up the road when the rocks are not a
potential risk for the marine environment
5. in a remote rural location,
where there is no practical alternative, the offal from disease-free muskox is
placed on the ice and allowed to fall into the sea during the spring
melt.
Item numbers 2 and 5 show that no rotting matter can be lightly
disposed off in the sea.
Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe severely criticized the
Chinese port city project in the run up to the 2015 January election when the
Yahapalanites won. But the addition of rubble and sand to the sea in the
construction of the port city is not as serious as adding a wall of rotting
garbage along the coast, or the ecological dangers of oil exploration in the
Mannar basin.
The Yahapalanaites stopped the port city when they came to power; then
re-authorized it and even paid heavy penalties for delaying the project.
However, perhaps some individuals profited handsomely in the process. Now the
port city is being built, giving an opportunity for ecologists who complained
about the project to gather daily data on the environmental impact of such
construction. There is a dearth of information, especially for tropical waters
regarding such projects.
(The author pioneered courses in Food Science and environmental
studies during his tenure as a Vice Chancellor and Professor of Chemistry at
Vidyodaya which is today’s SJP university. He is currently a Professor of
Physics at the University of Montreal, and works for the National Research
Council of Canada.)
His Excellency, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, President of Sri Lanka, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 1.
Your Excellency,
The National Joint Committee wish to congratulate you on
being elected as the seventh Executive President of Sri Lanka. We also wish you
every success during your term in office as President of Sri Lanka to implement
the election manifesto that you presented to the people. You have proven to be
an achiever who has always successfully implemented whatever task that you were
entrusted without any fear or favor. We are therefore confident that you will
be able to protect and preserve the unitary character of the state, its territorial
integrity and the sovereignty of the people of our nation for posterity.
You have unfortunately been elected the President of a
country in which people are divided based on ethnicity and religion. One of the
reasons for such division is ethnic and religious based party politics. We
sincerely hope that you will be able to unite the people of our country by
doing away with ethnic and religious based party politics. The other reason
that divides the people is the gradual establishment of ethnic enclaves in
certain parts of the country. Such ethnic enclave need to be discouraged and an
effort needs to be initiated to integrate people of all ethnic groups and
religious beliefs in all parts of the country.
The Indo Lanka Agreement that was forced on Sri Lanka by
India through gunboat diplomacy that resulted in the introduction of the 13th
Amendment to our Constitution has to be abrogated as the Provincial Councils
thus established have proven to be white elephants. Devolution of power as
opposed to decentralization of power can even result in
the division of our nation.
It is our view that Provincial Councils or similar
institutions should never be given legislative powers. We endorse your policy
of having one law for the entire nation. Granting legislative power to
Provincial Councils would go counter to such policy Therefore legislative power
given to Provincial Councils should be removed as a matter of priority.
Legislative power should only be exercised by Parliament. Even if Provincial
Councils are allowed to remain we are in favor of strengthening the Local
Authorities and Provincial Council members to be nominated from the existing
Local Authorities thus avoiding Provincial Council elections. Such a move would
prevent Provincial Council members being remunerated utilizing public
funds.
The National Joint Committee appreciates your pledge to
follow a strictly nonaligned foreign policy. Due to the fact that Sri Lanka is
strategically located in the Indian Ocean the country needs to remain
nonaligned and refrain from getting involved in the geopolitical confrontation
that is developing between America and China, through agreements that would
enable these countries to gain a foothold in Sri Lanka. Therefore all bilateral
agreements Sri Lanka has signed or propose to sign needs to be evaluated to
ensure that our country follows a strictly nonaligned policy. We are very
much concerned with the numerous trade and other agreements the Government of
Sri Lanka signed or attempted to sign with other countries against our national
interests. We therefore urge that Article 157 of the Constitution be further
strengthened to ensure that no future Government would enter into such
agreements surreptitiously without the approval of Parliament.
Finally we sincerely hope you will take necessary action to
enable Sri Lanka to withdraw from the co-sponsorship of UNHRC Resolution 30/1
taking into consideration information available in the Report of the Second
Mandate of the Maxwell Paranagama Presidential Commission of Inquiry and Lord
Naseby’s discloses to the British Parliament. It is our view that your
Excellency as a matter of priority prevent NGO’S both local and foreign from
interfering with state affairs. The anti Sri Lankan resolutions and agreements
were entered into and numerous legislation enacted to harass our Armed Forces
at the instigation of these NGO’S. Therefore we suggest for you to appoint a
special Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of these NGO’S and
prevent them from interfering with the affairs of our motherland.
Yesterday I
stood in the hall of the Durham Union to argue for the proposition: This house
believes Britain owes reparations to its former colonies”. The following is the
text of my ten-minute speech, followed by five brief reflections on the
opposition’s arguments.
I still remember the first time I taught colonial history at the
LSE.
LSE students are among Britain’s finest: they graduate from top
schools, perform brilliantly on their A-level exams. And yet when I gave a
lecture about the Indian famines of the late 19th century to a classroom full of
third years, I was met with blank stares. As a direct result of British policy,
30 million Indians died needlessly of hunger between 1875 and 1902. Laid head
to foot, their corpses would stretch the length of England, from Dover to the
Scottish borders, 85 times over.
No one in the classroom had ever heard of it.
And this tragedy was not an isolated incident. There were many
more. The Great Bengal Famine in 1770 killed 10 million people, one third of
the region’s population. Here too historians blame British policy: brutal tax
collection, enclosure of forests and waterways, forcing farmers to rip up their
rice to plant crops for export. Similar policies imposed over the following
decades claimed the lives of another 22 million people, all while record
agricultural exports were being siphoned away to London.
Historian Mike Davis has famously likened these famines to the
holocaust. And yet the corpses that the British left strewn across India have
been almost entirely forgotten. Tell me: would we ever tolerate such amnesia
when it comes to the crimes of Nazi Germany? Never. Any such ignorance is
rebuked, and rightly so. Yet when it comes to the crimes of the British Empire,
an insidious form of holocaust denialism vipers right through our culture.
While he was Prime Minister, David Cameron went on record saying:
There’s an enormous amount to be proud of in what the British Empire did.”
Why? Because the British brought development” and whatnot. Or so the argument
goes.
But there isn’t a shred of evidence to back this up. During the
entire 200-year history of British rule in India, there was zero increase in per
capita income. In fact, during the last half of the 19th century—the heyday of
British intervention—income in India collapsed by half. The average life expectancy of Indians
dropped by a fifth from 1870 to 1920.
India wasn’t developed” under British rule – it was de-developed.
And not just in terms of social welfare. British policy was designed to destroy
India’s domestic industries by imposing asymmetrical tariffs, by dismantling the
institutions that trained up producers, and in some cases even by maiming
skilled artisans – all to create captive markets for British goods. During the
course of British rule, India’s share of the global economy shrank from 27% to
3%.
Yet despite this litany of violence, a recent YouGov survey found
that 80% of Britons do not regret colonialism. 44% are actively proud of it.
How is this possible? I hear it all the time: pundits and politicians arguing
that colonialism brought democracy, property rights, rule of law, railroads…
What a strange twist of reason this requires.
Democracy? British rule was dictatorship! Africans and Asians
struggled and bled for the right to vote in their own countries. Property rights?
The whole point of colonialism was dispossession—securing the rights of the
colonizers to the property of the
colonized: land, gold, diamonds, taxes, even the bodies of the colonized
themselves. Rule of law? The object of colonial legal codes was to deny equal
rights to colonial subjects. And India’s railroads were used to pump
resources—grain and timber—out of the hinterlands to the ports for British use.
Even if we accept that useful things were shared during colonialism
– universities, for instance – that is not the same as saying they were a benefit ofcolonization. Colonialism is not a
necessary vector for the transfer of knowledge or technology. Britain has long
enjoyed the Arabic numeral system, algorithms, and even algebra itself, without
ever submitting to Arab invasion. It takes a warped mind to believe that the
best way to share ideas with other humans is to colonize them.
But we have barely scratched the surface. Let’s not forget that
Britain’s first forays into colonialism were linked to the consummate expression
of barbarism: the Atlantic slave trade. 300 years of state-sponsored human
trafficking. 14 million souls shipped across the sea. Countless bodies shackled
to British plantations and churned into the sugar and cotton that fueled
Britain’s industrial rise.
And yet in the book I was made to read to become a British citizen,
this long, dark history was reduced to three sentences. You can visit Glasgow,
Bristol, London, Liverpool and every other British city that grew rich on the
slave trade without encountering a single memorial. Denialism vipers through
our culture.
We could spend all night listing off Britain’s crimes against
humanity. But that is not the point I want to make. This is not just about a
list of crimes. The denialism runs much deeper than that.
You see, we have this story we tell ourselves, that Britain’s
crowning moment of greatness, the Industrial Revolution, emerged sui generis from within Britain’s
borders – robust institutions, good markets, advanced science and technology.
This is the story that’s written into our children’s textbooks: we must all be
proud of Mr. James Watt and his inventions.
But scholars remind us that there is much more to the story than we
are normally told. From historians like Sven Beckert, Kenneth Pomeranz, Ellen
Wood, Parthasarathi and Karl Polanyi, the evidence is clear: the Industrial
Revolution was built on state violence, slavery and colonization. Britain’s
economic rise depended on cotton, sown and harvested by enslaved Africans on
land expropriated from indigenous Americans; depended on the theft of
agricultural products from Indian farmers; and depended on the forced
de-industrialization of Asia.
But, I can hear you say, that was all in the past. It ended more
than 70 years ago. Things are different now.
Are they? Only if you’re willing to forget what happened
afterward. Only if you’re willing to forget the British-backed coup that
deposed Mohammed Mossadegh, the first elected leader of Iran, when he tried to
regain control of the country’s oil reserves from Britain. Only if you’re
willing to forget the British-backed coup that deposed Kwame Nkrumah, the first
elected leader of Ghana, when he sought to reduce his country’s dependence on
British imports. Only if you’re willing to forget the structural adjustment
programs that Britain helped impose across its former colonies in the 80s and
90s, one after the other, reversing the progressive policies of the postcolonial
era to restore British access to cheap labour, raw materials and markets,
devastating the livelihoods of ordinary people in the process, adding hundreds
of millions to the ranks of the poor.
But we’ve forgotten all that. And we’ve forgotten much more
besides, including things that are happening right now. We’ve forgotten that
the City of London operates at the center of the world’s tax haven network,
which helps facilitate illicit financial flows that cost the South more than $1
trillion per year. Colonialism may be over, but the system that it created – a
system designed to siphon wealth from South to North – remains very much in
place. The word reparations” suggests that the problem is in the past. It is
not.
Frantz Fanon had it right when he wrote, in Wretched of the Earth, that Colonialism
and imperialism have not settled their debt to us once they have withdrawn from
our territories. The wealth of the imperialist nations is also our wealth.
Europe is literally the creation of the Third World.”
So go ahead – I challenge you: chalk up the billions of hours that
enslaved Africans worked on British plantations, pay it at a living wage. Tally
up compensation for the 60 million souls sacrificed to famine for the sake of
British surplus. Boost it all by 200 years of compound interest, and add that
to the trillions lost during structural adjustment and the trillions more in
stolen cash that flows through Guildhall. Try it. The numbers begin to swell.
They rise like a chorus of voices from the forgotten corners of our past. They
march like an army of ghosts who demand a reckoning.
And then it strikes you…. Then it strikes you that there is not
enough money in all of Britain to compensate for these injustices. And you
realize, that if Britain paid reparations – real, honest, courageous reparations
– there would be nothing left. Britain would not exist.
And that is exactly what
people find so terrifying about the question of reparations. It’s not that they
fear the actual prospect of paying. It is that even just thinking about what is owed reveals the
hard truth: that what is owed, is everything.
But really, this is not about the money. This is about something
far more important… this is about the story. The real reparations we need are
narrative reparations. So this is
what I ask of this house tonight – that we demand, at minimum, repair of the
broken story we tell ourselves: an end to the denial that has festered among us
for too long. Let us demand the truth be told in our schools and in our town
halls. Let us demand that alongside every statue celebrating Victoria and
Churchill there be memorials to their victims. Let us demand that the real story
of Britain’s rise be worn like poppies upon our breasts.
As Aime Cesaire put it, A nation which colonizes, a civilization which justifies colonization, is a sick civilization, a civilization that is morally diseased.” So what is at stake here, in the end, is not only justice for the dispossessed, but Britain’s own healing. Britain’s own humanity. To repair this broken story will cost you nothing, and yet you have everything to gain.
The brand new Chuda Manikkya (Pinnacle) of
Swarnamali Maha Seya was caused to be specially designed, crafted and made and
placed on the November 25th 2019 along with the unveiling of the
newly Gold Plated Koth Wahanse (Dome) on the 26 the November, through the
guidance and employing the full and sole financial donations of the founder of
the Vishwa Parami Trust, Mr. Prabath Nanayakkara. He is the fourth generation grandson of the great philanthropist,
Ransirinel Kumarasinghe of Averiwatte, who initiated the major restoration of
this Maha Seya in the late 18th Century, through the Chaithya
Development Society” of which he directed and implemented activities as the
Chairman.
The Chuda
Manikkya being such a unique and reverential object was especially made using
Crystal a most expensive and rare mineral and the difficult and very exacting
task of crafting it to the highest perfection was entrusted to the World’s
premier specialist organization in this sector, SWAROVSKI” of Austria, who in
turn did so using the most modern and sophisticated tools and technology and
utilizing the best Master Craftsmen in the trade.
I thus reiterate
and confirm once again, that the Chuda Manikkya (Pinnacle) placed on the
Swarnamali Maha Seya on the 25th November 2019, among the
incantations of rejoice of many lakhs of devotees is this very same Chuda
Manikkya described above, which was donated to Buddha Sasana with great
veneration and purity of purpose by the said Vishwa Parami Trust using entirely
its own financial resources and utmost devotion.
A
few weeks ago, indigenous leaders from Australia visited the Manchester
Museum. They went there to collect various sacred ceremonial artifacts
which were said to have been ‘taken without permission’ by early 20th
Century British colonialists.
Danny
Teece-Johnson, a journalist for Australia’s National Indigenous
Television, had an interesting comment on the language of extraction.
‘You’re
saying borrowed, you’re saying this and that. Nah, let’s talk about the
white elephant in the room: you stole it, you took it without
permission, that’s theft. If you did that these days, you’d get put in
jail for it.’
Language
is cute and few are as cute about its use than the British and of
course the country which borrowed their language and perfected the art
of political cuteness, the USA. Countries are never invaded, they are
‘democratized.’ The victims of terrorist attacks launched by such
countries are not people, they make up ‘collateral’. Land theft never
happened. Resource plunder? Never happened. Cultural genocide? No. Mass
slaughter? What? That’s called ‘civilizing’. A good thing, surely?
Now
around the same time or a few days after the above return of stolen
goods, the University of Edinburgh, in a moment of insane generosity,
returned nine skulls to Uruvarigaye Wanniyalaetto. The skulls are
supposed to be more than 200 years old and are thought to be those of
Wanniyalaetto’s ancestors.
Nice. Let’s say ‘Thank you, thanks for the kind and generous gesture.’
Alright.
Enough applause. Let’s talk of skulls and skullduggery, taking without
permission and outright theft. In 1974, P.H.D.H. De Silva published a
book titled ‘A catalogue of antiquities and other cultural objects from
Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Abroad.’ There
are over 15,000 items listed. Remember, these are thefts that have been
recorded and stolen goods that are given names, numbers and catalogued.
They have ended up, as far as we can say with absolute certainty, in 23
countries and 140 holding facilities. This is not counting gene piracy
and post-colonial extraction, let us not forget. The vast majority of
the artifacts listen in the book are in Britain. Bristol, Cambridge,
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Berkshire, Leister, Liverpool, London, Sheffield and
Windsor are among the cities mentioned.
And they return nine skulls!
So
we say ‘Thank you,’ and think ‘Such lovely folks.’ Well, Wanniyalaetto
has stated that the lovely folks in Manchester had told him there were
14,000 more skulls and bones. Apparently they are to take steps to
return them as well. If you clapped once for the nine skulls, you would have to clap 1555.5 times if/when these other bones are returned.
Now
this stuff is not new. Eight years ago, almost to the day, i.e. from
September 14 to November 24, the British Council in Colombo arranged a
traveling exhibition of artifacts. It was called ‘A Return to Sri
Lanka.’ That’s tongue-in-cheek that was lost on one and all, indicating
how sycophantic we have become. The following was the blurb advertising
the event: ‘…covers nearly 300 years of the country’s history through
150 digital facsimiles of materials from major British collections,
including maps, manuscripts, prints, drawings and photographs as well as
other artifacts’.
The
first question: ‘Only 150?’ Wear an expression of incredulity as you
ask it. Second question: ‘Facsimiles?’ Whatever expression you wear it
should indicate the words used to camouflage without really wanting to,
i.e. ‘What the flower?’
The
then Country Director of the British Council, Tony Reilly, called the
exhibition ‘a partnership event.’ The purpose, he claimed, was ‘to share
it, to experience, to enjoy, to argue and talk about 300 years of
cultural diversity described in each piece.’ He left out ‘theft’. He
left out ‘butchery’. He left out ‘genocide’. That’s par for the course,
of course.
That exhibition was interestingly funded by the World Collections Program. Well! Let’s talk ‘collections’.
In
August 2018 the British Museum decided to return to Iraq eight 5,000
year old artifacts looted following ‘the fall of Saddam Hussein’ as they
reported it. Fall, huh? Ha! Apparently the objected were seized by
police from a London dealer in 2003 and had been in the hands of the
state for 15 years before being identified as having been extracted from
a site in Tello in southern Iraq. The Director of the British Museum
Hartwig Fischer said at the time that the institution was ‘absolutely
committed to the fight against illicit trade and damage to cultural
heritage.’
Wow!
He
missed this important point: Britain is the product and the repository
of illicit trade (sanitized term for ‘plunder’ in the lexicon of British
Apologetics).
Britain’s
partners in crime in this business across the Atlantic, the USA, uses
the same kind of language. In September 2019, US authorities returned a
stolen coffin to Egypt, two years after it was acquired by the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The 2,100 year old coffin
of a priest called Nedjemankh had been featured in a exhibition of
artifacts from Egypt. Apparently it had been looted and smuggled out of
Egypt in 2011. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, speaking at a
repatriation ceremony, opined that this was one of hundreds of
antiquities stolen by the same ‘multinational trafficking ring.’
Multinational
trafficking ring! That’s a descriptive worth holding on to. That’s what
colonial rule was all about, wasn’t it? That’s what’s happening even
now, isn’t it? Wars are not about democracy, resolutions are not about
human rights. It’s about creating conditions (including the support of
or installation of pliant governments) for the highly profitable
business of plunder. Land, oil, strategic geographies, water, genetic
resources, you name it, it’s all ‘open to exploration,’ let’s say.
What’s
the market value of nine skulls? What’s the market value of 300
facsimiles compared with that of the originals? Of course, the curators
of museums and custodians of other ‘collections’ didn’t kill anyone or
rob things. They are, however, holding on to stolen goods. There is no
talk of returning these to the descendants of those who were robbed and
probably killed in the process as well.
And
it can’t start and end with artifacts. Yes, it is hard to ascertain the
true value of everything that was stolen and even more difficult to
obtain the true cost of the damage in terms of cultural erasure,
destruction of livelihoods and lifestyles, forced dislocation and all
the trauma that was part of such things. Britain
is reported to have paid out 20 million sterling pounds to slave owners
in the colonies of the Caribbean, Mauritius and the Cape of Good Hope
as per a census on owners as of August 1, 1834 under the Slave
Compensation Act of 1837. Words! It was not the slaves who were
compensated but the slave-drivers!
That’s
a benchmark. Contrary to the Anglophiles in Sri Lanka, who get
nostalgic about a ‘British Rule’ that took places long before they were
born, and who talk about roads, railways and such, the truth is that the
British were out and out brigands. They
didn’t build roads and railways. A subjugated people’s labour is
congealed in all that was built with money extracted through brutal
systems of taxation (without representation, mind you!). In addition to
mass slaughter, they destroyed temples (and built churches on their
foundation — ‘to civilize the heathens!’ Yeah, right!) and
either burnt or robbed countless invaluable Buddhist manuscripts. Yes,
we can add the theft of intellectual property to artifact theft,
resource extraction, labor exploitation and gene piracy. If the British
could quantify and compensate slaves, we could quantify reparations for
colonial plunder.
And they return nine skulls! Did someone say ‘Hooray!’?
There
are no facsimiles of the blood they spilled, the tears shed, the
screams before butchery. No facsimiles of villages torched and children
killed. No facsimiles of temples razed to the ground or forests cleared
(and the timber shipped out) for coffee and tea. And it’s not facsimiles
of artifacts and manuscripts that are now housed in the British
Library, the Victoria and Albert Museums, the Natural History Museum in
London and other loot-holding facilities.
Eight
years ago, when the British Council was bragging about facsimiles, a
friend offered the following: ‘they fokkin’ brazen aint they? so let’s
see, they steal and then show us pix of what they stole but wont return?
No one asking for reparations or loot? Is there a catalog of the stolen
in collections? Is Keppetipola’s skull still in Scotland?’ And I wrote,
‘This is not a return” to Sri Lanka. This is about slapping one cheek
and slapping the other too for good measure. Returns that can be
Xeroxed” sums up the season of plunder that does not seem to have ended
after the British left”. They could return what they robbed and keep
the facsimiles in their collections, after all.
But they’ve returned nine skulls! Hooray!
But
then again, they’re refusing the return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius
despite an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of
Justice (ICJ). The archipelago is now the site of the US military base
in Diego Garcia. And the USA, which just the other day threatened to
arrest and sanction judges and other officials of the International
Criminal Court if it moves to charge with war crimes any US citizen who
served in Afghanistan, would probably thumb its nose as the ICJ if it
‘tried to be funny’.
Well, funny is the word. It’s hilarious.
They returned nine skulls. I could die laughing. EXCEPT, it is no laughing matter. It’s skullduggery in cute form indulged in by multinational artifact traffickers.
Danny
Teece Johnson was correct. They should all be serving time in prison,
these do-gooding, skull-giving beneficiaries of skullduggery.
Skulls. Indeed!
READ ALSO:
If the Common-Welt is to be erased…Returning facsimiles of loot does not compensate, sorry malindasenevi@gmail.com
After the release of the ‘Executive Version’ of the Millennium Challenge Compact, between the United States of America (acting through the Millennium Challenge Corporation) and the Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (acting through the Ministry of Finance), and its accompanying ‘Constraints Analysis’ document on the website of the Ministry of Finance of Sri Lanka, in early November, a number of reviews are beginning to appear, on public websites on its benefits (some organized by pro-US think tank, Advocata Institute) as well as those on likely disadvantageous, or detrimental impacts.
This is, indeed, a healthy trend for the conscious public to get a balanced understanding of this compact. This is specially so because the ACTA, SOFA and MCC agreements are considered together by some critics as ‘Unholy Trinity” during the period leading to the recently held presidential elections, in Sri Lanka.
However, some of these reports seem to have thrown the baby with the bath water, while the others apparently have strived to keep the baby with the bath water. Although there were many politically charged report, from both sides, I was able to read only a very few essays which have specifically addressed the substantive technical issues of the MCC Sri Lanka Compact draft agreement – the executive version available on the Government websites.
Having written two reviews on the MCC Sri Lanka Compact earlier on (The Island, 03 May, 2019, and 15 July, 2019) before the release of the above agreement, I now wish to add my own perspective on some substantive technical issues, specially in relation to environment and socio-cultural impacts of the proposed Land Compact of the MCC, in addition to addressing related sovereignty issues which were also raised by some other writers.
Almost all the concerns have been raised on the Land Compact rather than on the Transport Compact of the MCC. However, both have been prepared on the strength of an independent Constraints Analysis Report, assimilated using a threshold grant and submitted in 2017. Interestingly, it was prepared using a ‘Growth Diagnostics’ model (developed by a Harvard University research team) which is ‘predicated on the idea that wholesale policy transformation into a western-style market economy may be excessively burdensome and even counter-productive for poor countries to prioritize challenges to a country’s development’.
According to this economic model, the ‘idea that wholesale policy transformation into a western-style market economy’ (meaning a lead to a ‘grant trap’?) need to be avoided. Instead, the model proposes that a country should conduct a diagnostic assessment, concentrating on the policy reforms necessary to achieve economic growth which should be less burdensome in addressing the challenges facing a country’s development. I wish to examine the documents, available to us on public media, in the light of the above statement of the Growth Dynamics of the MCC Sri Lanka Land Compact.
There are also a number of critical assessments of the MCC Compact programme, by independent international scholars (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2017.1401463?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=ctwq20), as well as those who had been associated with the programme since its inception two decades ago reflecting on their personal experiences in handling these compacts worldwide (www.CarnegieEndowment.org/ pubs; https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32427.pdf ). Also there is a recent review on ‘Millennium Challenge Corporation: Overview and Issues’ published by the US Congressional Research service, prepared for Members and Congressional Committees (https://crsreports.congress.gov/
RL 32427), updated on 03 October, 2019. These are freely available on the web and I have taken those also into consideration during the preparation of this essay.
Sustainable Economic Growth
At a time when the United Nations is assertively promoting ‘Sustainable Development Goals’, worldwide, the ‘economic development and economic growth’ referred to in this nationally important MCC Sri Lanka document with far reaching consequences, we hope that the Compact – the Land Compact, in particular, – is very sincerely aligned with the ideals of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which Sri Lanka is legally bound to implement.
The SDG No. 08 says – ‘Sustainable economic growth will require societies to create the conditions that allow people to have quality jobs that stimulate the economy while not harming the environment. Job opportunities and decent working conditions are also required for the whole working age population. There needs to be increased access to financial services to manage incomes, accumulate assets and make productive investments. Increased commitments to trade, banking and agriculture infrastructure will also help increase productivity and reduce unemployment levels in the world’s most impoverished regions’.
The overall MCC Compact Goal in Section 1.1 of Article 1 says ‘ The goal of this Compact is to reduce poverty through ‘ economic growth’ in Sri Lanka. MCC shall provide assistance in a manner that strengthens good governance, economic freedom, and investments in the people of Sri Lanka’.
To what extent the factors contributing to the ‘sustainability’ of the proposed economic growth models have been taken into consideration, in the preparation of successive scorecards for Sri Lanka from 2016 -2019 (under Good Governance??), need to be explained to reassure the Sri Lankan public of its alignment with the SDGs and accompanying green growth.
The MCC claims that it has formally adopted the International Finance Corporation’s ‘Performance Standards on Environmental and Social sustainability’ and once again we sincerely hope that the ‘economic growth’ in the Article 1 of the MCC Compact agreement, refers to ‘sustainable economic growth’, recognizing Sri Lanka’s alignment with the relevant SDGs and Aichie Biodiversity Targets, while being a Global Biodiversity Hotspot.
It is my view that this aspect should be further developed before signing the agreement, through the engagement of forums of Sri Lankan professionals familiar with the current trends in the MCC performance Indicators on 1. Ruling Justly, 2. Investing in People (e.g. Natural Resource Protection and Health Expenditure) , and 3. Economic Freedom (e.g. Land Rights and Access) which were used in the preparation of Constrains Analysis Report (2017) for Sri Lanka. Most of these documents being under preparation since 2016, they caught the public attention that they deserve, only a few months ago.
Country Reports vs. Reports in scorecard preparation
These scorecards, on which the Constraint Analysis most likely have been prepared for the country as a whole, have been sourced from the country reports prepared by the WHO, Columbia Centre for Int’l Earth Science Info Network/ Yale Centre for Env. Law and Policy (CIESIN/YCELP) – and IFAD/IFC. It is not clear as to what extent these indicators have been scored in a sub-regional context of the targeted seven districts of the MCC Land Compact.
In Sri Lanka, climatic and associated socio-cultural-livelihood contrasts are clearly evident in the seasonal South-west and the 1.seasonal rest of the country. As such, land rights and access (e.g. cascade irrigation systems – a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System), 2.) natural resource protection (e.g. Global Hotspot of Biodiversity, ecological corridors for megafauna, riverine forest formations) and 3.) Health expenditure (resulting from severe agro-chemical pollution e.g. CKDU) particularly in Dambulla, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Trincomalee regions need to be analyzed separately to achieve more robust scorecards using local expertise leading to the preparation of the Constraints Analysis report thus aligning with the relevant SDGs.
Based on the Constraint Analysis Report prepared by the Government of Sri Lanka and the MCC (in partnership with Harvard University’s Centre for International Development), three binding constraints acting as most severe hindrances to economic growth have been identified;
1. Policy uncertainty, especially regarding revenue collection and tax policy;
2. Transport bottlenecks, particularly in the Western Province; and
3. The difficulty of the private sector in accessing land for commercial purposes.
Large-scale Commercial agriculture vs. Cascaded Tank-Village Systems – Ellangawas
As I said at the beginning of this essay, much of the criticism has come in respect of the land compact, which apparently is paving way for removing constraints on accessing both government and privately owned land in the above districts of ‘Wew bendi Rajya’ – ancient agricultural heritage of ‘reservoir kingdom’. The constraint analysis seem to have taken in to consideration both the distribution of small tanks and river basins (Figure 6.1 of the Constraints Analysis Report – page 34) in their planning exercise and the maps included therein acknowledged as those from IWMI and CGIAR are reproduced here.
Figure 6.1 of Constraint Analysis Report – River Basins and Locations of Small Tanks in Sri Lanka reproduced together with map representing areas of CKDu Prevalence (from Govt. sources)
As evident from this figure, most of these small tanks, the very foundation of the ingenious ancient irrigation system ensuring landscape and livelihood security to local populace, are concentrated within the districts that are being apparently considered for medium and large-scale private sector development projects. These Cascaded Tank-Village systems or ‘ellanga gammana’, master-pieces of sustainable irrigated agricultural systems have been designated as ‘Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) by the FAO of the United Nations in April 2018.
The disused or abandoned cascade systems of Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Matale and Kurunegala districts are being systematically restored at present with both national and international sources of funding. These landscape restoration initiatives are being considered as a solution to climate change adapted agriculture and also to reduce heavy agro-chemical pollution that has knocked down the backbone of the traditional agricultural heritage of these rural communities. As such, they have been given high priority by the Government for their rehabilitation.
The Constraint Analysis of Sri Lanka Compact is very critical on the restrictions on land parcel size, the absence of land titles, and longstanding laws affecting rural land use all it claims to reduce agricultural productivity and rural well-being. It goes on to say that unlike other comparator countries, Sri Lanka restricts private ownership of agricultural land to 50 acres per person, which obviously prevents economies of scale from being realized in the case of large private sector agricultural investment.
Our concern is that how the privately driven medium and large scale commercial agricultural (or other industrial) enterprises proposed in the Land Compact could be realistically super-imposed on these sophisticatedly designed small holder-dominated traditional agricultural landscape mosaics.
Medium and large scale commercial agricultural enterprises, usually taking to cultivation of a few commercial crops of promising export markets, are reputed to be aiming at maximizing their profits while externalizing their environmental and social costs. There is already evidence from some of the already established commercial plantations in these areas, that the water availability for small-scale farming communities being reduced as a result of competition for water at the same time contributing to increasing ground water pollution from heavy use of agrochemicals in these commercial plantations.
Issues of this nature should be resolved before the agreement is signed. A case in point is reported in the evaluation brief on the implementation of the Moldova MCC Compact, titled ‘ Removing barriers to high-value agriculture in Moldova’.
Evaluation brief of the Moldova compact is indeed an eye-opener for Sri Lanka, thus avoiding it being a ‘Grant Trap’.
($259 million from 2010 – 2015 – file:///D:/Ecosystem%20Services%20&%20their%20valuation%20-%20MCC/2019%20-%20MCC/Economic%20value%20of%20land%20-%20%20MCC/Oct-Nov%202019/Moldova%20compact%20-%20evalbrief-20190022199-mda-agriculture.pdf)
Under ‘MCC Learning’ section of this Moldova compact evaluation, the Evaluation Brief goes on to say the following: ’Instead of rebuilding old Soviet irrigation systems, designed to irrigate large areas of land, irrigation systems could have been designed better to serve the existing situation in Moldova, where many farmers have small plots of land and are hesitant to cooperate. Greater farmer consultation in the design phase would have facilitated understanding farmer needs’
Therefore, modernization of ancient irrigation systems in the ‘wew bendi rajya’ in North Central Sri Lanka by introducing innovative technologies and management practices of organic agriculture including inland fisheries redevelopment into small-holder farming community programmes, could be considered as promising private sector ventures as opposed to large-scale high through-put commercial agriculture.
Designing a judicious blend of these widespread traditional agricultural systems, with modern innovative technologies incorporating the updated MCC Environmental Guidelines, would, indeed, be a challenge under article 2.7c of the MCC Sri Lanka Compact Agreement. Some local enterprises are already engaged in such organic agricultural ventures by regrouping marginalized local farmer communities to produce environmentally certified products and purchasing them at a premium price for export.
Economic Corridors
There are a number of punching and counter-punching bouts on the issue of developing ‘economic corridors’ under the MCC Sri Lanka Land Compact. As I mentioned in my earlier articles in The Island (May 03 and July 15), the spatial space of the MCC Sri Lanka Land Compact is in most part overlaps with that of Colombo – Trincomalee economic corridor development project of the then Megapolis Development Ministry, in accordance with the new National Physical Plan 2050.
Under Section 2.6 of the MCC Agreement (Government Resources; Budget), it says that the Government shall not reduce the normal and expected resources that it would otherwise receive or budget from sources other than MCC for the activities contemplated under this Compact and the Programme. This means, at least to me, that although the MCC Sri Lanka is not involved in designing an economic corridor from Trincomalee to Colombo, its program activities complements with those of the Megapolis ministry and the denials of an economic corridor by MCC is no more than a matter of political and diplomatic squabble.
Interestingly however, the first economic corridor for this region has been proposed almost a half a century ago as reported by the eminent town and country planner, Prof. Willie Mendis, in 2009. Even at that time, about 3/4ths of development and economic growth stemmed from a 50-mile wide corridor formed between two lines connecting Chilaw—Kuchchaveli, and Bentota—Katankudy. Accordingly, the corridor was clearly identified as the stomach or ” belly” for powering Sri Lanka’s economic growth and development. At that time it held about 70% of Sri Lanka’s population, and 35% of its land area. (Figure 2).
Prof. Willie Mendis’s following comments on the Colombo – Trincomalee economic corridor is even more valid in today’s context, if judicious sustainable development programs taking lessons from the environmental and socio-economic sustainability outcomes of Mahaweli Development Project could be designed to suit the needs of the 21st century in a country driven primarily by a small-holder economy:
‘Colombo’s primacy has been considered to be overwhelmingly biased towards further polarization of development in the south-western seaboard of the island. This situation favored the shift of policy to the provinces beyond the west end. Its centerpiece was the multi-purpose Accelerated Mahaweli Development Project which embraced a large spatial envelope in the north-western and north-central provinces of the country. The telescoping of its completion, in 1978, to six years was an impetus for spatial planners to propose it’s integration with the Colombo—Trincomalee Development Axis.
However, for whatever reason, this did not happen, and its missed opportunity is now history. The downside was the relegation to the backburner of it’s strategic component of constructing a rapid transit connection between Colombo and Trincomalee, through the aforementioned ” belly”. Its route trace offered the potential for triggering the spread of development activity in the north and south of the country. Its envisaged spur on the Habarana-Vavuniya-Jaffna route was an opportunity to transform the economic landscape of the north, due to it’s rapid connectivity with the markets in the south.
However, as emphasized in a recent report on ‘Integrated Spatial Planning and Analysis to Prioritize Biodiversity Conservation in Sri Lanka’ by Environmental Foundation (Guarantee) Limited and the National Biodiversity Secretariat of Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment, Sri Lanka (December 2017), there is an urgent need to identify and spatially map the biodiversity conservation priorities so that they can be integrated in to the mega-development plans like those of the MCC Land Compact and the Economic Corridor projects of the Megapolis Ministry. Doing so will minimize land allocation conflicts and minimize and mitigate the impacts from hurriedly designed socio-economic development projects.
I have already dealt with the related issues on the likely impacts of increase tenure security and tradability of land and the urgent need for improving the valuation of state and private lands in a ‘green economic milieu’ in my previous article on the 15th July in The Island newspaper. A sustainable green economic growth is what Sri Lanka is yearning for amidst a plethora of environmental problems it currently faces. It is rather intriguing how a green score card (77% -&79%) for environment protection has been obtained for years 2016-2019 during the preparation of the Constraint Analysis Report.
Sovereignty Issues
This aspect has been sufficiently dealt with in several previous articles including those by Neville Laduwahetty and Rusiripala Tennakoon which demand explanatory responses from the proponents of the Land Compact for the benefit of the interested public.
Elaborating further on what they have said, I wish to draw the attention of the public on Article 5 Section 5.1b of the Compact Agreement on Termination;Suspension;expiration of the MCC Compact (pages 13 and 14). There are eight sub articles i-viii describing circumstances ‘but not limiting to them’ as a basis for suspension or termination. A constitutional legal expert can perhaps analyze this better as to what degree Sri Lanka is going to be bound in the context of its sovereignty issues.
Furthermore, under Section 5.3a on Refunds; Violation it says ‘ If any MCC funding , any interest or earnings thereon, or any programme Asset is used for any purpose in violation of the terms of this Compact, then MCC may require the Government to repay MCC in United States Dollars the value of misused MCC funding, interest, earnings, or asset, plus interest thereon in accordance with Section 5.4 within thirty (30) days after the Government’s receipt of MCC’s request for repayment’.
Although the MCC Sri Lanka Compact, as a whole, is a total grant to Sri Lanka, the clauses as given under Article 5 seem to make this Agreement serious inroads in to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and if violated, the consequences seem to be very severe, at least in my humble non-legal opinion (Section 5.3 on page 14). It is not a simple case of giving a ‘free lunch’ as some people claim. If that is the case, is there a way to avoid this seemingly a ‘Grant Trap’?
We have been informed that the Hambantota Harbour deal has been flawed and need to be re-negotiated and do not know at what cost. The MCC Sri Lanka Compact being a so called outright grant hailed as a once-in-a-lifetime freebie, it is better to be careful of the pitfalls from these ‘free lunches’ from the very outset.
The MCC has a past record of suspending or terminating threshold programs in Yemen (2005) and Niger (2009) due to deteriorating selection criteria performance, and in Mauritania (2008) after a coup triggered automatic aid prohibitions. Compacts in Nicaragua and Honduras were each partially terminated due to governance concerns, and the Armenia compact was also put on hold for similar reasons in 2008, though the Board did not suspend it. Coups in Madagascar (2009) and Mali (2012) each led to in wholesale termination. Sri Lanka need to be mindful of what happened in these country contexts. Independent evaluations on these are available on the web to take lessons from their failures.
Land Special Provisions Act:
The Land Special Provisions Act (LSPA) proposed in relation to 2(a) (iv) (a) Registration of Absolute Land Grants Sub-Activity is expected to define the process of the Government shall use for this conversion of State Lands to private domain, creating a marketable and bankable title to this land in the name of the land holder. However, due to Provincial Councils being dissolved at present, the possibility that this bill may need PC consent, GOSL has withdrawn this bill. Therefore, the paragraph 2(a)(iv)(a) need to be removed according to GOSL sources.
This indeed has given a yet another window of opportunity to critically reexamine the impacts, legal or otherwise, of this LSPA on other existing Acts such as Mahaweli Authority Act of 1979.
Conclusion
Taking all the above into consideration, it is better to take a step back and be very clear of the selection criteria performance agreed upon by the previous Government in the context of the policy directions of the newly elected Government. The eight sub articles i-viii in the Sri Lanka Compact Agreement describing circumstances ‘but not limiting to them’ as a basis for suspension or termination need to be re-examined before signing the final version of the MCC agreement (which may be different from what we have been commenting upon) , the accompanying Project Implementation Agreement (PIA) , any other Supplemental Agreement and any Implementation Letters which provide further details on the implementation arrangements, fiscal accountability and disbursement described in Article 3 section 3.1 of the current Executive version of the Compact Agreement. The latter documents are not yet publicly available for comments.
The author of this article is a Professor Emeritus at Peradeniya University and a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka. He can be contacted at nimsavg@gmail.com
Colombo, December 2 (newsin.asia): China claims that Sri Lanka has agreed to develop the Hambantota port and other on-going China-assisted projects as per the existing consensus,”, thus virtually opting out of a bid to renegotiate the controversial 2017 agreement on the Hambantota port which had leased it out to China for 99-years.
A Chinese embassy statement, put out by Xinhua on Monday, said that during the visit to Colombo of Wu Jianghao, representative of the Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Sunday and Monday, China and Sri Lanka had agreed to speed up the implementation of cooperation on big economic projects, including the Colombo Port City and the Hambantota Port, under the existing consensus”.
The statement added that on the basis of the existing consensus, the two countries will draw up and promote a new blueprint for future cooperation.”
Wu Jianghhua and the Lankan leaders also agreed to further strengthen robust political trust between the two countries and upgrade their pragmatic cooperation,” the statement further said.
It is significant that Foreign Minister Wang Yi sent Wu Jianghua as his representative because Wu was China’s Ambassador in Sri Lanka during the earlier Rajapaksa regime between 2005 and 2014. Wu therefore knew Gotabaya Rajapkasa and Mahinda Rajapaksa well. Mahinda Rajapaksa was then the Lankan President and Gotabaya Rajapaksa was Defense Secretary.
Wu had paid separate calls on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and other Sri Lankan leaders.No” To Renegotiation?
The Chinese statement, in effect, means that China will not agree to renegotiate the 2017 agreement on Hambantotaa port as desired by the Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Gotabaya had told Nitin Gokhale editor-in-chief of the Indian defense journal Bharat Shakti prior to his departure for a meeting with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on November 29, that he opposes the giving of Hambantota port to a Chinese company on a 99-year lease.
The newly elected Lankan President said that the people of Sri Lanka do not like the alienation of a strategic asset like the Hambantota port to a foreign entity and that for such a long period. He announced that he would renegotiate the pact entered into by the previous Ranil Wickremesinghe government.
(The feautured image a the top shows the Chinese special representative Wu Jianghua with Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa)
Sri Lanka and Switzerland have got embroiled in a diplomatic row of sorts over the alleged abduction and subsequent release of a Sri Lankan woman working at the Swiss Embassy in Colombo. Curiously, the alleged incident was not reported to the police immediately. The Swiss mission has declined to name ‘the victim’ for reasons of her safety. Let’s, therefore call her Ms X.
Bern is reported to have summoned the Sri Lankan Ambassador to register its protest. Colombo is pressuring Swiss envoy Hanspeter Mock, to co-operate with the ongoing police investigations. It has gone so far as to issue a detailed denial of the Swiss envoy’s claim; insisting that CCTV footage, GSP data, telephone and Uber records, etc. have proved the alleged adduction never took place, it has requested the Swiss embassy to allow Ms X to be interviewed by the police. It also wants her to be examined by a doctor because her employer says she is not well.
The Swiss Embassy claims that Ms X was intimidated and interrogated by her abductors, who sought to elicit information about Chief Inspector Nishantha Silva, who recently left for Switzerland with his family. The abduction drama has eclipsed the issue of the controversial CID officer seeking asylum in Switzerland. It has also helped put Colombo on the back foot.
The Sri Lankan government has claimed that the alleged abduction is part of a plot to discredit it. Some grandees of the incumbent dispensation have a reputation that is difficult to live down. Even if a tippler happens to drink a glass of milk, people think he is consuming toddy, as the local saying goes. It is said that ‘he that has an ill name is half hanged’.
There are three possibilities as regards the Swiss Ambassador’s claim. He is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or he has been misled by those who, the government says, are party to a conspiracy to bring it into disrepute, or he finds himself in a position where he cannot admit he erred and misled Bern and the international community. In respect of the counterclaims as well, there are three possibilities; the government is telling the truth, or it is trying to suppress the truth to avoid international condemnation, or the abduction was carried out without its knowledge.
Various arguments anent the alleged abduction smack of circular reasoning. The rivals of the government insist that the abduction really took place because the Swiss Ambassador says so! The apologists of the government argue that the abduction never took place because it has been officially denied! They may go on claiming that the assumptions they are required to prove are true and, therefore, their conclusions are valid, but others who keep an open mind and are desirous of knowing the truth will be left none the wiser.
The question is how to get at the truth. This is a task that cannot be accomplished without a thorough probe. The Sri Lankan police have a pivotal role to play in investigations into the alleged incident and they must be given access to Ms X, who deserves justice if her abduction claim is true.
The alleged abduction has already attracted international media attention and is sure to be used against Sri Lanka in Geneva when the UNHRC has its next session. The Sri Lankan government must, therefore, probe it, and the Swiss Embassy ought to act responsibly and cooperate with the police fully.
The argument that the identity of Ms X will be disclosed and her life endangered if she is allowed to be interviewed by the police does not hold water; if it is true that the abduction has really taken place, as the Swiss embassy insists, then her identity must already be known to her ‘abductors’. An opportunity for the police to question her will not put her in harm’s way because she has taken refuge in the Swiss Embassy. It is imperative that she be examined by a qualified doctor without further delay.
We can only hope that Bern will realise that the alleged abduction of Ms X is not purely a diplomatic issue, and the legal aspects thereof have to be looked into. It will be interesting to see the Swiss Embassy’s response to the government’s denial of its Ambassador’s claim.
The CID today fact-reported to the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court to launch a fresh investigation into the controversial statement made by former Minister Rajitha Senaratne on ‘white van drivers’ at a press conference held prior to the presidential election.
Addressing a press conference held on November 10, the former minister said a new government of theirs would probe into the alleged murders and abductions took place during the Rajapaksa regime.
In front of the media, he had presented two individuals whom he claimed were a ‘white van’ driver and victim of an attempted abduction in such a setting.
However, reporting facts before Colombo Chief Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne, the CID informed that it would launch investigations into suspects Anthony Douglas Fernando and Athula Sanjaya Madanayake who were reported to be a white van driver and victim.
Furthermore, the CID said it would conduct investigations into accommodation facilities provided to both suspects and on concealing facts in connection to the said incident.
The CID requested a magisterial order for television channels requesting unedited video clips of the press conference. Accordingly, the Magistrate ordered the channels to provide the needful.
The complaint has been lodged by an individual identified as Kumudu Pradeep Sanjeewa Perera and the CID is to continue investigations according to Section 102, 113 and 119 of the Penal Code.
Power and Energy Minister Mahinda Amaraweera today sought a report on the controversial tender given to a Chinese consortium to construct the Kerawalapitiya 300MWs LNG power plant. He instructed Ministry Secretary, Ms. Wasantha Perera, to submit a report on the issue in two weeks.
A crucial meeting to take a final decision on the matter is scheduled to be held on Thursday.
Chinese consortium GCL China WindForce and RenewGen got approval for the proposed power plant thus bypassing LTL whose bid was the lowest. Eight bidders out of 39 investors were short-listed in April 2017 by the Power and Renewable Energy Ministry while Consortium of Samsung C and T, Komipo and GS Energy, The Consortium of Sojitz Corporation, CGNPC International Ltd., Consortium of Gel, WindForce, RenewGen, Korea Southern Power Co. Ltd., Lakdhanavi Ltd., Hyflux Ltd. and Consortium of Summit Power International Pte. Ltd. were selected as possible investors for the project and short-listed as bidders.
Later, WindForce and RenewGen were selected as investors in spite of LTL’s unit price being Rs.14.98 and the unit price of Chinese company GCL being Rs.15.97. During the bidding time, the US Dollar stood at Rs.150 against the rupee and the rate has now risen to Rs.180 and price difference soared to Rs.1.21. LTL’s total project estimate was $175 million and the second-lowest bidder’s estimated $299 million.
Kerawalapitiya LNG power plant was proposed as a solution for a possible power crisis during 2019 and 2020. Perhaps to make amendments to offering the tender to the Chinese company, the government decided to award another contract to LTL to set up a new 300MW LNG plant.
I want to go to the bottom of the tender offered to construct the Kerawalapitiya power plant as there have been a few gray areas in the tender procedure. I will take a final decision on the matter shortly as the construction of the power plant with an installed capacity of 300MWs is extremely vital to prevent a possible power crisis in the next few years,” Minister Amaraweera said.
Until
such time the investigations officially conclude after the Swiss release a Sri
Lankan National kept inside the embassy compound since 25th November
2019, it is only correct that the distortions and lies being spread is
corrected officially by the Sri Lanka Foreign Ministry. Invite all diplomatic
mission heads & key staff – explain the timeline – do a presentation and
ask them to raise counter questions. Follow full transparency methods and show
to the world how Sri Lanka is conducting the investigations and how embassy is
withholding the victim from being questioned.
Overall
objective was to accuse the Govt of abducting a Swiss employee
Timeline of incidents
24 Nov
Sunday
CID CI Nishantha Silva secretly flees
Sri Lanka with wife & 3 children
to Switzerland. Visa given by Swiss embassy without police approval letter.
25 Nov Monday
Female local staffer of Swiss Embassy ‘temporarily
abducted’ & threatened
(note news not made public in Sri Lanka
but relayed via foreign media-why?)
26 Nov/Tue Web article
employee
stationed in the Swiss embassy reportedly abducted in a white van” and ‘released
after two hours’ ‘abductee questioned about Nishantha Silva who worked in the
CID”
‘attack’ connected to t
high-ranking Sri Lankan police inspector who took ‘asylum in Switzerland’‘due to death threats’ because he had
been investigating corruption and rights
violations in connection with the entourage of newly-elected President Gotabaya
Rajapaksa”
detained against her
will on the street and threatened at length”
27 Nov/Wed Web media NYT
New
York Times
Swiss embassy employee is abducted and
asked about asylum applications and investigators are banned from leaving just
days after Gotabaya Rajapakse is elected”
‘forced to hand over
sensitive embassy information’
‘men forced her to unlock
her cellphone data, which contained information about Sri Lankans who have
recently sought asylum in Switzerland and the names of Sri Lankans who aided
them as they fled the country because they feared for their safety after
Gotabaya Rajapakse won’.
police investigator fled
to Switzerland with his family on Sunday”
‘Switzerland
embassy employee was reportedly abducted in a vehicle, detained for two hours
and then released’
27 Nov/Wed Web media
According
Island newspaper
Swiss
ambassador Colombo came to inform incident to PM Mahinda Rajapakse at his
Wijerama Mw – GLP, PM’s foreign affairs advisor and acting IGP were present.
Victims identity was not disclosed by envoy
Secretary/Foreign Relations Ravinatha
Aryasinha together with Secretary/Defence Major General (Retd.) Kamal Gunaratne
and relevant officials met with the Ambassador for Switzerland in Sri Lanka
Hanspeter Mock and the Deputy Chief of Mission
SL Foreign Ministry Press Release
says
sequence of events/timeline of abduction given by Swiss embassy on behalf of
local staffer do not corroborate with her movements as evidenced by witness
interviews/technical evidence, uber records, CCTV footage, telephone records,
GPS data
SL
Foreign Ministry requests Swiss embassy allow law enforcement authorities to
interview her and examine her by a SL medical officer as she claimed injuries
were sustained during abduction
25th
Nov: Questions for Swiss Embassy
How
did she break the news of this assault to the Embassy?
If
as per Sunday Times newspaper the incident happened at 5p.m. – if so, that means
she would have returned to Gregory’s Road at only 7p.m. – was the Embassy
opened at this time & who was in the premises other than the security?
Did
you take a statement from her – is this filed?
Did
you inform the Sri Lanka Police or Sri Lanka Foreign Ministry of incident that
evening itself (25th Nov) if not why didn’t you?
Why
did you decide to keep her inside Embassy compound without sending her home
that evening?
What
was the reason given to the family? Did the family come to visit her on 25th
Nov? If so are they also inside the embassy compound
What
is the source to claim the Swiss local employee was abducted to be questioned regarding
Nishantha Silva who worked in CID?
26th Nov: Questions for NZZ
Swiss news media:
When, how and by whom did NZZ Swiss news hear about this
abduction?
With
what evidence is NZZ Swiss news claiming the abductee was ‘attacked”
27th Nov: Questions for
Swiss Foreign Ministry/swissinfo.ch
Is
this written statement to swissinfo.ch from the Swiss Foreign Ministry AFTER
taking an official statement from the abductee?
27th Nov: Questions for New
York Times
What
is the source that the abductee was forced to hand over sensitive embassy
information?
What
is the source for the statement ‘men
forced her to unlock her cellphone data, which contained information about Sri
Lankans who have recently sought asylum in Switzerland and the names of Sri
Lankans who aided them as they fled the country because they feared for their
safety after Gotabaya Rajapakse won’
How does NYT know staffer was questioned
about Nishantha Silva
27th Nov: Questions for TamilGuardian
What
is the source to claim abductee was abducted in a vehicle?
What
is the source to claim abductee was questioned about Nishantha Silva?
28th Nov: Questions to Sri
Lanka Foreign Ministry
Adaderana
news portal claims incident was conveyed to Foreign Ministry on 26th
Nov – to whom was it conveyed, by whom in the Swiss embassy & was it by
phone/email or official letter?
Questions to Norway
Island Newspaper
sources allege Norway secretly moved out Sri Lankans including LTTE cadres and Rajapakse administration sought
explanation from former Norwegian ambassador in Colombo Hilde Harasldstad.
Questions for Swiss
Embassy
On
what grounds did Swiss give visa to Nishantha Silva who did not have an
official letter to travel overseas (Swiss are one of the strictest countries to
give visas)
Who
arranged visa and tickets for Nishantha and entire family to travel on 24th
Nov – a Sunday?
What
is the relationship Nishantha & Swiss Embassy have been having in secret
and for how long?
How
did the abductors know this local staffer was handling secret visa/asylum papers?
NYT
says abductee had her phone unlocked which contained information about Sri
Lankans seeking asylum to Switzerland and names of Sri Lankans helping them to
flee – does Swiss embassy allow such information to be on mobile phones?
How
come the abductors & the Swiss embassy only know her identity but everyone
else doesn’t?
How
come a health ailment that did not exist from 25th Nov suddenly
result in ‘deteriorating health’ on 30th November when Sri Lanka
Govt insisted on questioning her?
If
she is ill and she has been sexually molested as alleged given that she is a
Sri Lankan citizen, Sri Lanka must be allowed to examine her and give treatment
to her. Why is the Swiss embassy not allowing this?
If
she is too ill to give a statement how can she travel to Switzerland which is a
minimum flight hour time of 14hours and with transit may even be more?
On
what grounds did Swiss give entry permit to a naval officer who gave evidence
against Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Admiral Ravi Wijegunaratne,
Questions to victim (whoever she is –
if she does exist)
Did
you take a hired cab to drop child at school around 5p.m. on Monday 25th
Nov 2019
If
so, why did you not drop the child at school which was walking distance from
Swiss embassy and get yourself dropped at the embassy – why walk to the
embassy?
Why
go to an embassy when it is closed & only security is inside – local recruits
are not allowed to open embassy offices
Our Questions
Was
this drama an attempt to divert guilt away from Swiss for giving asylum to CID
CI Nishantha Silva to flee Sri Lanka & earlier another Naval officer to
flee to Switzerland?
Does
this ‘victim’ actually exist or is it a fabricated story?
Did
the victim create this story to claim refuge in Switzerland similar to an
earlier attempt by another Swiss local staffer in 2009?
Did
the victim and Swiss embassy jointly connive this drama to embarrass the Govt
and the new President?
Gathering all foreign mission heads – putting the truth on the table – having a panel answer their questions will put an end to their spreading lies and distortions. Same should be done to international media outlets too
