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?

We have told ourselves a nice story about the economy. As we adopted the Manchester School and made it into the 20th-century model, the market became central. We renamed it into the neoliberal model. We forgot that the economy is far more than just the work sphere, or the business cycle.

I have written about this in the past because part of this is ideology.

We ignored the centrality of home life to economic life. Why we have stopped investing in those things that keep home life going.

We see it with education, which we continue to shortchange. It was not always this way. The launch of Sputnik led to a generalized panic. The United States lost its technological edge. We had to do something! Part of that something was a massive investment in public education. We needed to get our children and young adults ready for what these days is called science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; STEM for short.

The Russians launched Yury Gagarin soon after Sputnik; we knew we were falling behind. Not only was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told, even ordered, to catch up. We started to do something else. Basic and secondary education was prioritized, and budgets grew.

But it was in the area of education that the impact of the Sputnik Crisis was to be most felt. In 1958, the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in an effort to ensure that the highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields.” In order to achieve this goal, the act made provisions for loans and grants to institutions of higher learning who wanted to improve their mathematics, science and foreign language programs. Of course this made perfect sense; there was no point setting up research and development bodies if there would be no trained personnel to run them.

Consequently, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was revamped and its budget drastically increased. In 1959, Congress appropriated 134 million dollars for the Foundation, almost a hundred million dollars more than the previous year. By 1968, the Foundation was receiving about half a billion dollars a year in federal funds; in fiscal 2012, the NSF had a budget of some 7 billion dollars and provides the funds for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted in colleges and universities throughout America. In some fields, such as mathematics and computer science, the NSF is the major provider of federal support. At all events, in the decade between 1955 and 1965, federal expenditure on research and development rose from 2.7 billion dollars to more than 15 billion dollars, as old bodies, such as the NSF, and new ones, such as NASA, competed to fund research of one kind or another.

But it was not just the government that was putting in new resources into education. The system itself was enthusiastic in its determination to take a giant leap forward, for practitioners of education in America were by no means sanguine at the thought of being left behind by their Soviet counterparts. James B Conant, a former President of Harvard University carried out a detailed two year study of American high schools with the support of the Carnegie Foundation in order to ensure that all gifted children were being properly motivated to pursue higher education; and in 1960 Harvard embarked on its biggest fund-raising up till then for the purpose of reforming its whole approach to education. The campaign raised 82.5 million dollars.

Less than a decade later subsidies went to public colleges and universities. This is the origin of well-funded systems like the University of California, and the California State system. These subsidies allowed students to attend colleges, and not go into massive debts. In fact, most students who graduated from college did so without debt or very little debt.

Compare this to the present. We are in the midst of a planetary emergency. We need people trained in the STEM fields. This is not because the Russians launched a satellite into space, or beat us into manned. No, the planet is in the midst of a crisis. And we may face extinction.

However, we are cutting educational budgets at all levels, from pre-K to graduate schools. States and the federal government have a problem finding the money. Teachers are facing pay cuts and benefit cuts across the board. The crisis is worse in some states than others, but it’s a crisis.

As a society, we decided that the market should take care of this. Why many charter schools (who can choose their student body) are financed with public funds but are run as private organizations. These schools also lack in the area of certified teachers.

It gets worst. The current administration is taking this effort to epic levels. Why? Science could impinge on the market and its instincts. The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing a new measure that will exclude science from its rulemaking. According to the New York Times:

The measure would make it more difficult to enact new clean air and water rules because many studies detailing the links between pollution and disease rely on personal health information gathered under confidentiality agreements. And, unlike a version of the proposal that surfaced in early 2018, this one could apply retroactively to public health regulations already in place.

In the final analysis, it is coming from our faith in the market, no matter what. It is also a retreat from the role of government, which is also part of the economy. Ultimately it is a product of corporate capture.

It is a rejection of the science that allowed us to clean this country’s waterways. It is part of a pattern, which also doubts the existence of the climate emergency. It is a complete surrender to the market.

So what happens when we ignore the core economy? For starters, we see increased insecurity and the costs of certain core services have gone up.

The transformation of the American economy into a market-centric system where education was commoditized happened in the last forty years. It creates not just distrust, but also insecurity. It is one of the reasons behind the precariat.

Then we have other issues that are part of this, the efforts to reduce the already paltry safety net is not just an attack on good government. It is also a direct affront to the core economy. If the elderly, for example, have no means to take care of themselves, it will have a direct effect on the rest of society. Just as we have some of the most expensive pre-K in the world, we have a safety net that is dissolving in the name of the market. This takes away from the efficiency of workers in the private sector.

The inequality in pre-k also keeps poor parents at home, or children are placed with relatives. While children of well to do parents go to schools that could cost as much as college. This deepens inequality and handicaps most. This is problematic because those children show up to school not ready to learn. They already are attending substandard schools. This is a cost we all pay. It is also an early indicator of the school to prison pipeline.

We also see this with health care. We have the most expensive, least efficient system in the world. People stay at a job to keep their insurance, as good or bad as it may be. People fear to go to the hospital, because there will be a bill to pay, and perhaps lose all they have worked for in their lives. This makes society sicker and less able to function. Some in the market charging as much as they can get away with, and lobbying politicians to prevent them from imposing measures that would slow down, or reverse trends. They include things like a maximum price for drugs, or being able to negotiate for lower costs on all services.

We have monetized and put in the hands of the market higher education, healthcare, basic research. We forgot that our success in the 1950s and 60s came from a heavy investment in these areas by the government. No, the private sector did not build the internet, which you are using right now to read this piece. That was the Department of Defense. Granted, ARPANET came from a need to survive a first, even second nuclear strike. But it is the origin of the internet and the information economy.

Nor did the GPS system we all use came from the private sector. In fact, it is still a military system that we civilians use. It was the government that invested in the basic science and technology needed to develop this. Many of the medicines we use today started with basic research at the National Institutes of Health. It was not the private sector that did that, so when we are told by the industry that it costs a lot of money to bring new medicines and procedures to market, they are correct, but a lot of it came from the taxpayer.

Over the last few decades, our investment in basic research has gone down. These are the trends:

For the first time in the post–World War II era, the federal government no longer funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United States. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and ’70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.

The sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends — a flattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade and a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since 2012. The first is a familiar story to most academic scientists, who face stiffening competition for federal grants.

This rise is coming from the pharmaceutical industry. It is not just because they can get great profits from new drugs. But they can impose intellectual property rights on these, avoiding the need to share. This makes medicines that much more expensive for much longer.

When combined with a lack of price controls in the United States this makes it a very good business. And we are seeing it with old drugs, such as insulin. Small changes in the drug allow them to patent the drug anew. This is one reason insulin continues to rise in cost. Also, things like the Epipen, originally developed by DoD scientists to treat troops during a chemical attack, have gone into the stratosphere when it comes to price.

When Americans say that this is capitalism gone astray, they have a point. This is a system where the regulatory bodies were captured. It is also a system where profit is put ahead of human life affecting all spheres. In particular the core, or household economy.

Basic services are not there. Labor rights are under attack. Ultimately, because of this, the planet is under attack. However, some people are getting insanely rich. This will have negative effects on the overall economy, as well as political stability.

Yes, when Senator Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders raised the issue of a wealth tax, this is partially what they are addressing. We need to rebalance our economy in ways that will redistribute wealth. But that will also strengthen the role of government and re-regulate industries towards the common good and away from pure profit-making. We also need deep investment in green economies, meaning that subsidies to mature industries (the fossil fuel industry) will need to go to the green industries we need to survive as a species.

This is precisely why those who benefited greatly from the centrality of the market above all else are not happy. If you made a few billion under the current system, higher taxation may cut your wealth growth curve. It will not stop under either model but will slow it down.

Think about this. How many cars, planes and homes can you own? How much material stuff can you acquire? Psychologists have found that people who are extremely wealthy have distorted views.

Several studies have shown that wealth may be at odds with empathy and compassion. Research published in the journal Psychological Science found that people of lower economic status were better at reading others’ facial expressions — an important marker of empathy — than wealthier people.

A lot of what we see is a baseline orientation for the lower class to be more empathetic and the upper class to be less [so],” study co-author Michael Kraus told Time. Lower-class environments are much different from upper-class environments. Lower-class individuals have to respond chronically to a number of vulnerabilities and social threats. You really need to depend on others so they will tell you if a social threat or opportunity is coming, and that makes you more perceptive of emotions.”

They may also develop an addiction to accumulating more money, which is a problem. One reason why they may feel threatened by a wealth tax. It will reduce the speed at which they get that money. Why they will fight against this. Maybe even, run for office themselves.

We need to recalibrate and re-regulate the economy to make it work better. And by regulation I mean change how it works. Not just who is regulated. But we also need to expand government investment in public services, including education and healthcare. Chiefly, we must move away from the market as the only way to run the economy.

Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Clarifying the UK’s Conservative Party’s stance with regard to its reference to Sri Lanka in its election manifesto, senior party officials said the reference is applicable only to the Middle East but not to Cyprus or Sri Lanka.

The Foreign Ministry said in a statement that its attention had been drawn to remarks made by a member of parliament, Udaya Gammanpila, over media yesterday in connection with the reference to Sri Lanka in the election manifesto of the Conservative Party in the run-up to the general election in the United Kingdom scheduled for December 12, 2019.

The full statement is as follows:

In this regard, the Ministry of Foreign Relations wishes to state that a paragraph on page 53 of the Conservative Party manifesto which refers to Sri Lanka is worded as follows:

‘We will continue to support international initiatives to achieve reconciliation, stability and justice across the world, and in the former conflict zones such as Cyprus, Sri Lanka and the Middle East, where we maintain our support for a two-state solution;’

Following the publication of the manifesto, the High Commission of Sri Lanka in the UK in consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Relations took immediate steps to make strong representation to the Co-Chair of the Conservative Party The Rt. Hon. James Cleverly with regard to the distortion contained in the manifesto in its reference to Sri Lanka.

This was conveyed through a letter by Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in the UK Manisha Gunasekera on 27 November 2019 addressed to the Co-Chair of the Conservative party.

The High Commissioner affirmed that the reference to Sri Lanka as a country which requires a two-state solution is unacceptable, and has never been the position of any party in the UK. She reaffirmed that successive British governments led by all parties have always supported peace and reconciliation in a united Sri Lanka. The High Commissioner, therefore, requested that the paragraph be suitably amended to accurately reflect the Conservative party position on Sri Lanka.  A copy of the letter is annexed herewith for perusal (Annex I)

Subsequent to representation by the High Commissioner through the above submission as well as through outreach to senior representatives of the Conservative Party, the Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Paul Scully issued the following clarification on the subject to the High Commissioner by his email communication of 27 November 2019:

‘The party’s position regarding Sri Lanka has not changed. To be absolutely clear, the two-state line in the section was intended to refer only to the Israel-Palestine situation in the Middle East (as is stated policy).  The commitments to Sri Lanka and Cyprus were simply about continuing existing efforts to support peace and reconciliation in divided societies.’

The above position has also been reiterated by The Rt. Hon. Theresa Villiers, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK through her public post on social media (Facebook) of 30 November where she has further added the following:

‘The subsequent reference to a two-state solution refers to the Middle East, NOT to Cyprus or Sri Lanka.  I have been in contact with Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, and he has confirmed this. ‘

Conservative party Deputy Chair Paul Scully has in his twitter message of 3 December 2019 once again reiterated the above position of the Conservative party, stating the following:

‘There is no Conservative manifesto commitment relating to the makeup of governance of Sri Lanka. … two-state relate only to the Middle East.’

The Ministry of Foreign Relations is of the view that the above would clarify the position of the Conservative Party on the issue as well as action taken by the Ministry of Foreign Relations and the High Commission in London to correct the distortion.  

Courtesy Ada Derana

Sri Lanka’s former foreign minister Prof. G.L. Peiris claims that the incident involving a local staff member of the Swiss Embassy in Colombo is a conspiracy aimed at discrediting the incumbent government. 

It has been clearly proven that the complete story of the Swiss Embassy incident is a lie,” he said, speaking to reporters. 

He stated that based on the CCTV footage and other technological evidence, the female embassy staffer in question had never been at the location where they claimed she had been at that time and that it has now been proven that there is absolutely no truth to the story”.

Peiris, who is the Chairman of the Sri Lank Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), the main constituent party of the ruling alliance, alleged that this was an attempt to discredit the government as soon as it started work.

Especially as the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva is scheduled to meet in March 2020 serious allegations could be leveled against Sri Lanka, he charged while adding that they see this as a secret plot to obstruct the government’s path at the get go.

He said the current government has the strength to defeat all these obstacles and move forward. 

Courtesy Ada Derana

The Foreign Ministry of Switzerland and the Swiss Ambassador in Sri Lanka has requested permission to take the Swiss embassy staffer, who allegedly was involved in an abduction incident, to Switzerland, revealed Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena.

Speaking at a press conference today (04), Gunawardena stated that the Swiss government has requested permission to fly the alleged victim and her family to Switzerland on an ambulance aircraft, citing health issues.

However, the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court has already issued an order preventing the said staffer from leaving the country.

Gunawardena stated that a Sri Lankan, who hasn’t verified their identity using either NIC or a passport, cannot be allowed to leave the country, especially without even obtaining a statement. This was relayed to the Ambassador, he added.

The press conference was also participated by Foreign Secretary Ravinatha Ariyasinghe and State Minister of International Cooperation Susil Premajayantha.

උපුටාගැනීම Hiru

පසුගිය රජය සමයේ දක්ෂිණ  අධිවේගී මාර්ගයේ වැඩකටයුතු අවසන් කර නොමැතිව අනාරක්ෂිතව විවෘත කිරීමට අනුබල දුන් පුද්ගලයන්ට දඞුවම් ලබාදිය යුතු බව සත්‍ය ගවේෂකයෝ සංවිධානය පවසනවා.

All rational thinking people are stupefied as to why the Swiss embassy is keeping a Sri Lankan National inside the embassy compound but asking the GOSL to conclude the investigation into an alleged abduction which has not been officially made by the victim. This is a strange situation. We have been reading statements by everyone but the victim. What if the version of the victim is completely different! We can only know what her version is if the embassy simply allows her to leave the embassy. Why are they keeping her inside an office since 25^th November? It is now over a week that this lady has not seen her family. This is very awkward behavior for a country eternally preaching about human rights!

Amidst all this Sri Lanka’s ambassador is summoned to Berne to explain the factual dispute.

Let’s get something very clear first:

It was the Swiss Foreign Ministry spokesman Pierre-Alain Eltschinger on 27^th November 2019 about an incident. All that he said was: the female local recruit was threatened” in order to force her to disclose embassy-related information” – detained ‘against her will’ ‘on the street’

“Switzerland views the incident as a very grave and unacceptable attack on one of its diplomatic missions and their employees,” spokesman says  

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/swiss-raise-alarm-attack-sri-lanka-embassy-employee-191128061621424.html

That statement did not disclose any detail about her being abducted in a vehicle by unidentified persons which was only included in the statement by the Swiss Embassy Colombo. (pl refer what the Swiss Ministry said and what the Swiss Embassy has said in its official statement)

So if authorities go by only the Swiss Foreign Ministry statement – she was never abducted.

This means the Swiss Embassy must explain how they included a version that the Swiss Foreign Ministry did not include!

Obviously the Swiss Mission in Colombo has given various other details and Sri Lankan authorities investigating these have claimed that the timeline and sequence do not match against the details they gave. This was after going through witness accounts, technical evidence, Uber records, CCTV footage, telephone records and GPS data.

So when State Secretary Pascale Baeriswyl questions Sri Lanka’s envoy K. Hettiarachchi & asks him to explain how Sri Lanka’s evidence contradicts Switzerland’s version we should be asking is it the first version that she was threatened on the street or the additional versions given by the Swiss Embassy or the coterie of other third party versions that Sri Lanka has to investigate?

If Switzerland has no interest in delaying the investigations why are they not releasing this Sri Lankan National – first to be medically examined and next to help file complaint and expedite investigations based on her direct complaint and not those of third or fourth parties making statements on behalf of her.

If Switzerland is supporting to settle the matter by due process of law, then why is a person kept virtually hostage inside an embassy compound. Not only is this a mental torture for her having to be stuck inside a small office but she must be traumatized by not seeing her family for over 1 week now.

This is quite inhuman of the Swiss authorities who claim her health is deteriorating but will not allow any Sri Lankan doctors to examine her?

If she was well enough to come to work how can her health fail so suddenly?

What has happened to her inside the embassy that the Swiss do not wish to tell the world about.

This suspense is only allowing many people to create their own versions which is confusing the investigations further and which is why it requires authorities to get her version directly.

The Swiss Embassy Colombo is behaving very childishly regarding this entire incident.

The key to this is that there is a major variance in what the Swiss Foreign Ministry originally said on 27^th November 2019 and the official statement issued by the Swiss Embassy Colombo on 29^th November 2019 (5 days after the incident) while keeping the local recruit boxed up inside the embassy compound.

If the Swiss authorities are not allowing any doctors to see her at least they should allow the Cardinal to visit her and bless her.

But the behavior of the embassy is bordering the ridiculous and it is more like a hostage situation which is far more worrying than an alleged threatening on the street.

A Sri Lankan National is being kept inside an embassy compound since 25^th November and the embassy is refusing to release her and we all want to know why.

Leave aside filing complaint or being questioned, shouldn’t she deserve medical attention and to return to her family? Why is the Swiss denying this – her fundamental right?

More than concluding any investigations, she should get medical assistance and return to the comfort of her home and family.

Shenali D Waduge

A Sri Lankan Citizen

Its 3^rd December 2019 exactly 8 days since a Sri Lankan National is being kept inside your embassy compound and we want to know why. We do not buy your stories that she is refusing to make a statement which later was turned into she is too ill to make a statement. We are not buying any of the stories you claim she said either. We want her out of that embassy and shown to our doctors but most of all she must return to her family. Your embassy is denying her fundamental right of freedom. Where is that Sri Lanka Human Rights head, why is she not demanding the embassy release our national?

Every bit of news since 25^th November has been what the Swiss media, the international media & the Swiss embassy is claiming.

NOTHING has been said by our Sri Lankan National.

How do we know what the Swiss embassy is telling is the truth?

What if they have done some mischief to her?

Is she safe, is she really ill, is she really inside the embassy, is she alive are some of the questions now entering our minds.

If the embassy does not wish to show her, the embassy must at least release a voice recording of hers to show the Sri Lankan citizens and in particular her family that she is alive.

We are very worried about our national.

Why should the Swiss embassy keep her inside so long?

Why should the Swiss embassy insist on transporting her and her family away?

What is the Swiss embassy trying to hide?

We have had enough of Swiss Embassy drama. Come clean on what you have done to our national. The entire local staff are now scared to even open their mouths. Is this the big freedom, human right that you people are boasting to the world about.

Enough of your lies.

Release her.

Have you people scared her family too. Is that why they are not coming forward to ask her release? Is the Swiss Embassy holding this family to ransom? Is that why no family members or relations are even lodging a complaint that their family member is missing? Otherwise this woman’s family must be wondering where the hell she is. What about her child, the child your embassy said she dropped, have you not thought of the agony this child must be going through not knowing what has happened to the mother?

You wanted to pull off a stunt to embarrass the Govt but now the whole country is asking why your embassy is not releasing our Sri Lankan National. There are enough of abduction cases across the world, all of them lodge complaints with police and police investigate and try to find the culprit. So why is your embassy not cooperating if there was actually an abduction. We hope this is something not made up by you and that is why you cannot produce this woman whom you used to create a story. But how long can you keep a Sri Lankan National inside the embassy compound?  

Release our Sri Lankan National whom your embassy is keeping as hostage.

Time someone filed a fundamental rights case and lodged a complaint with the human rights commission against the Swiss embassy and lodged a complaint with the UN regarding this hostage taking situation.

Sri Lankan Citizen

Lt Col. A.S. Amarasekera (Rtd,) H.M.G.B. Kotakadeniya (Senior D.I.G. Rtd,)
Co-President Co-President  The National Joint Committee

The National Joint Committee condemn the action taken by the Embassy of Switzerland and their Government to facilitate the travel of a public official attached to the CID by the name of Nishantha out of Sri Lanka and the subsequent grant of asylum in Switzerland to the said Nishantha. Soon after it was revealed that the Government of Switzerland was behind this high handed and illegal act, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland issued a statement that an official of the Embassy of Switzerland in Sri Lanka had been abducted and detained for two hours by an unidentified group. It is in this situation that the Government had requested the identity of this official who is said to be a local employee and a citizen of Sri Lanka for the purpose of investigating the alleged abduction. The Government of Switzerland has refused to divulge the identity of this official or any access to her although they falsely claim that they are cooperating with the investigation. This is obviously because such investigation would reveal the illegal conduct on the part of the Government of Switzerland.

Article 38 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which is codified as a law in Sri Lanka by the Diplomatic Privileges Act No. 9 of 1996 states,

Other members of the staff of the mission and private servants who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State.”

So far the Government of Sri Lanka has not extended diplomatic privileges to other staff members of diplomatic mission of other countries in Sri Lanka in terms of Section 2 (5) of the said Act. Thus this employee cannot claim diplomatic immunity. This high handed act on the part of the Government of Switzerland, denying access to one of their employees who has no diplomatic immunity is not only illegal but also an affront to the sovereignty of the Republic of Sri Lanka. According to the media reports which appeared today the Government of Switzerland has requested the Government of Sri Lanka to allow this employee to be flown out of Sri Lanka in an air-ambulance on the basis that there is rapid deterioration of her health.” The National Joint Committee wish to remind the Government of Switzerland that if there is rapid deterioration of health” of a citizen of Sri Lanka, it is the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka to provide urgent medical assistance to safeguard her life and not the Government of Switzerland. The Sri Lankan Government is fully capable of ensuring the safety of its citizens.
There is a serious doubt whether this employee is to be removed from Sri Lanka against her will for the needs of other interested parties.

Therefore before granting authorization by the Government of Sri Lanka it should be satisfied that this request to leave Sri Lanka is made at the request of this employee who is a citizen of Sri Lanka. We also wish to bring to the notice of the Government of Switzerland that obstructing police officers investigating a crime in itself is a violation of the criminal law of this country and the diplomatic immunity extended to the Diplomatic agents of the Embassy of Switzerland does not extend to engage in criminal activities in this country

The Government of Sri Lanka has a right to know from the Government of Switzerland the reason for suppressing the identity of this particular employee. It is necessary for the Government of Switzerland to make public whether they have any evidence that the Government of Sri Lanka was involved in the alleged abduction to suppress the identity of this employee. If such an allegation is made it is the duty of the Government of Sri Lanka to investigate such complaint. To deprive the Government of Sri Lanka in performing its obligation towards its citizens cannot be permitted for any reason.

It is obvious that this entire drama is to cover up the illegal act on part of the Government of Switzerland and to embarrass the Government of Sri Lanka especially at a time when Geneva session are due in March 2020.
The National Joint Committee note with much regret that even the notorious report of the OHCHR dated 16th September 2015 based its findings on the so called testimonies of witnesses whom the Commissioner withheld the identity. (Vide Paragraph 24 of Part 1 of the Report.) It is unfortunate that western governments with vested interests make use of the UN High Commission for Human Rights to harass and make false allegations on sovereign countries that are unwilling to comply with the dictates of these governments. Unable to find proof of these false allegations the latest is to withhold the identity of the ‘so called victims’ and to initiate action against countries based on false allegations. The Government of Sri Lanka needs to revisit whether it could any longer treat the Government of Switzerland as a friendly nation that it could extend diplomatic immunity. The Government of Sri Lanka should be mindful and take cognizance of the true friends of Sri Lanka without accommodating rogue states, hell bent on making false allegations for political reasons.

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

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.

Lahiru Pothmulla Courtesy The Daily Mirror

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.

Courtesy Hiru News

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.

Courtesy Swissinfo

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 21^stApril 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.

Shenali D Waduge

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,”  

UK Population of 56.1million people

86% are White British (48.2million).

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?

Both Corbyn and John McDonnell opened a Tamil War Museum in May 2019. http://www.uktamilnews.com/?p=31370

Corbyn also spoke at the Tamil Genocide Conference in October 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AIiNywEP0I  

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)
• Poverty in the UK is ‘systematic’ and ‘tragic’, says UN special rapporteur https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48354692
• 1.3m are unemployed in UK
• According to UK Telegraph there are 1.2million illegal immigrants in UK
• 8.4m face housing crisis in UK – 1.4 million are in poor quality homes. 400,000 are homeless
• 16,000 British war heroes are living on the streets or in prison (4% of homeless people are war heroes) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9005954/16000-british-war-heroes-prison-homeless/

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

Shenali D Waduge

Dilrook Kannangara

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.

Media Unit

State Ministry of Technology and Innvation.

BODHI DHANAPALA

(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.

By Dr Kamal Wickremasinghe Courtesy The Island

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.

Courtesy China.org

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.

KAMALIKA PIERIS

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, 13^th amendment,  19^th 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)

By Rohana R. Wasala Courtesy The Island

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. 

By Chandre Dharmawardana, Canada

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.)

The National Joint Committee

20^th September 2019.

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.   

Yours sincerely,

Anil Amarasekera/-

Lt Col,A.S.Amarasekera.(Rtd.) 

Co-President.  

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 of colonization. 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.

https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/10/13/the-case-for-reparations

PRESS RELEASE

TRANSLATION

The brand new Chuda Manikkya (Pinnacle) of Swarnamali Maha Seya was caused to be specially designed, crafted and made and placed on the November 25^th 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 18^th 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 25^th 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.

Signed/-

Venerable Pallegama Hemarathana Thero

Chief Incumbent Swarnamali Maha Seya

Malinda Seneviratne

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

By Prof. Nimal Gunatilleke Courtesy The Island

December 1, 2019, 9:10 pm

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

Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

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)