Mawbima News

The Sri Lanka Freedom Celebration (SLFP) has criticized the stand taken by their former leader Mahinda Rajapaksa on the Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Investigation on Sri Lanka.

Releasing a statement a couple of days back former President Rajapaksa called upon the government to reject the Report of the UN Higher Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Investigation on Sri Lanka.

Nonetheless, his colleagues in the SLFP who blindly backed any stand taken by Rajapaksa, when he was in charge, has refused to stand by their former leader who is now relegated to an opposition MP’s post.

Speaking to the media in Colombo nowadays SLFP media spokesman Dilan Perera mentioned today that Rajapaksa’s comments does not portray the party position and the statement on UN report by Rajapaksa was totally personal views of the former leader.

Perera noted that the SLFP has taken a neutral stand on the matter.

Perera went on to say that the party leader, President Maithripala Sirisena has appointed a committee to seek opinions of the SLFP members on the UNHRC report and the proposals contained in it.

The SLFP media spokesman stated that Rajapaksa was most welcome to submit his views to this committee.

In a statement to media, the former President Rajapaksa and current Kurunegala district parliamentarian said his government did not cooperate with the OHCHR investigation for a lot of reasons, mostly due to the fact it was instituted outside the established process of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

Rajapaksa went on to say that the usual procedure was for the President of the UNHRC to appoint a three-member independent panel to carry out the investigation after the relevant resolution is passed in the Council but the investigation on Sri Lanka was not carried out by an independent Commission of Inquiry but for the really initial time, by the OHCHR.

The report of the OHCHR investigation was presented to the UNHRC in Geneva by UN Higher Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra&#8217ad al Hussein on September 16th.

Issuing a statement former President Mahinda Rajapaksa these days urged the new Government to reject the report by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) on war crimes allegations.

The full statement issued by Rajapaksa

As the former head of state, I feel it would be suitable to make known to the public my observations on the recently released report on Sri Lanka by the OHCHR. My government did not cooperate with this investigation for several motives, foremost of which was that it was instituted outdoors the established procedure of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The usual process was for the President of the UNHRC to appoint a 3 member independent panel to carry out the investigation after the relevant resolution is passed in the Council. Nonetheless the investigation on Sri Lanka was not carried out by an independent Commission of Inquiry but for the extremely 1st time, by the OHCHR.

The OHCHR’s independence is questionable simply because it is funded for the most portion not by way of the normal spending budget of the UN but by means of ‘voluntary contributions’ from the quite Western states that sponsored the resolution against Sri Lanka. Additionally all the essential staff positions in this body are held by Westerners who make up half the cadre of the OHCHR. Resolutions are passed with overwhelming majorities at practically each session of the UNHRC calling for an ‘equitable regional distribution’ in staffing at the OHCHR to no avail. Given the composition of the OHCHR, it would not be possible to anticipate an impartial inquiry from them.

The Pakistani Ambassador to the UNHRC, HE ZamirAkram observed for the duration of the debate on the resolution that set up this OHCHR investigation on Sri Lanka, that “No self-respecting nation would agree to the intrusive measures advocated in this resolution.” He also wanted to know how this investigation was going to be funded, and stated that if the ‘donors’ providing the funding were also the sponsors of this resolution, the complete approach would be seen to be tainted. In spite of persistent questioning, he did not obtain a satisfactory answer to his query.

The Indian Ambassador HE Dilip Sinha warned that “an intrusive strategy that undermines national sovereignty” is counterproductive and that what is needed is a “constructive approach for dialogue and cooperation.” India also refused to support the setting up of this OHCHR investigation. The final resolution had the assistance of only 23 members of the 47 member UNHRC despite all the pressure that its strong sponsors brought to bear on the member states. That in short, is the background to the OHCHR investigation that has led to this Report.

Some speculate that this report could have been watered down due to the fact a new government has been elected to energy. If that is correct, then the Pakistani Ambassador HE Akram would have been correct in telling the UNHRC on 27 March 2014, that this resolution is “All about politics and not about human rights.” Be that as it might, I don’t see this report as possessing been watered down. The most that can be carried out with a report of this nature is to recommend the setting up of a war crimes tribunal and that has been accomplished.

Neither the OHCHR nor the UNHRC has the authority to set up an international war crimes tribunal. The only body with the authority to do so is the UN Security Council exactly where the veto power of China and Russia will be a element to contend with. Sri Lanka can not be taken before the International Criminal Court (ICC), due to the fact we are not a signatory to the Rome Statute below which the ICC functions. The other way is for the government of the nation concerned to cooperate voluntarily with the UN to set up a hybrid war crimes tribunal. What has been recommended in the OHCHR report is the only sensible way in which a war crimes tribunal can be instituted in relation to Sri Lanka. So it is incorrect to think that this report has been watered down in any way.

Some claim that this report has been watered down simply because no names have been pointed out in relation to any alleged incidents. That is obviously due to the reality that the OHCHR has no way of justifying such a linkage. But a prominent journalist D.B.S.Jeyaraj has pointed out that the names of crucial military personnel and units have in reality been described in the report in a manner created to incriminate and direct investigations even although those names have not been linked to particular incidents. Although some think that the report is not as negative as was anticipated, I do not share that view.

Even though some politicians claim that the threat of our war heroes getting arrested in foreign nations for alleged human rights violations under universal jurisdiction has receded simply because of this purportedly watered down report, the quite opposite is true in truth. There is a certain request made in this OHCHR  report on web page 252 to member states of the UN to investigate and prosecute those allegedly accountable for war crimes. This is in addition to the proposed hybrid war crimes tribunal they have advised. It is essential that the common public be informed about the genuine nature of this report.

Some appear to believe that had my government nonetheless been in power, this report could have led to economic sanctions getting imposed on Sri Lanka. However, neither the UNHRC nor the OHCHR can impose financial sanctions on a nation. Only the UN Safety Council has that authority and they will not impose financial sanctions except in the most serious conditions associated to a threat to worldwide safety. The USA and the EU could if they so wished, have imposed unilateral sanctions on Sri Lanka as it is their sovereign proper to refuse to trade with any nation. But such measures are extremely seldom implemented because the nation imposing sanctions ends up generating a permanent enemy of the folks of the country at the receiving end. Unilateral sanctions against Sri Lanka was never on the cards for the duration of my tenure.

Whilst there may have been tensions in between my government and some Western nations at particular times, there were Western leaders who understood our point of view as properly. John Kerry when he was the head of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations wrote in his December 2009 report titled ‘Sri Lanka: Re-charting US Strategy soon after the War’ that the Obama administration need to take a broader multi-dimensional strategy to Sri Lanka not driven solely by brief-term humanitarian issues but involving political, financial, and security dimensions.

In the course of the war, Sri Lanka and the USA had a mutually useful exchange of information on safety matters. Republican administrations in the USA typically took a much less intrusive strategy to Sri Lanka. There is much more to international relations than just human rights. The purchases produced, contracts awarded and possibilities offered for investors all play an even far more  important part in international relations. So I do not think that the OHCHR report would have led to sanctions getting imposed on Sri Lanka if my government had nonetheless been in power. Throughout my tenure, the main foreign investors in the Sri Lankan long term sovereign bond market and the securities exchange have been from America and Europe. It is only soon after I was voted out of office that these investors started withdrawing their funds from Sri Lanka.
In ruling a nation, there are occasions when one has to go against the wishes of strong nations in order to serve the interests of the individuals. In 1952, when Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake signed the Rubber-Rice Pact with China, the USA had imposed financial sanctions on the new Communist government of China and rubber was on the prohibited list. But Prime Minister Senanayake exported rubber to China even at the risk of antagonizing the USA since the folks of Sri Lanka needed rice. Similarly, I also had to go against the wishes of specific strong nations to defeat terrorism and bring peace to this nation.
Had unilateral sanctions in fact been imposed on Sri Lanka by Europe and the USA throughout my tenure, we would undoubtedly have taken remedial measures. When the EU withdrew the GSP+ trade concession from Sri Lanka in 2010 below stress from the potent Eelamist lobby in Europe, my government saw to it that exports of apparel to Europe continued to develop year after year. In 2008-2009 when the whole world was reeling beneath the worst worldwide depression because the 1930s, the folks of this nation had been not even conscious of the worldwide recession because of the measures that my government took to contain the crisis. My government had an financial track record of which I am justifiably proud.

Several of the suggestions in the OHCHR report give result in for concern. In my view, establishing a hybrid special court to try war crimes integrating foreign judges, lawyers and investigators, and prosecutors is not feasible. If there are allegations of wrongdoing against any member of the armed forces, I strongly think that those must be tried below the existing Sri Lankan law, beneath our present courts system and by our judges and our Lawyer-General’s department. Our armed forces risked almost everything and produced huge sacrifices to save the nation from the scourge of terrorism.

The recommendation that the OHCHR be permitted to establish a permanent presence in this country to monitor the human rights situation makes no sense since the country has been at peace for over 6 years with no allegations of ongoing human rights violations.
 
The OHCHR has also advised that the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka must retract its refusal to accept the competence of the UN Human Rights Committee to consider person complaints from Sri Lanka. We had a equivalent arrangement with the Privy Council when we were a dominion of the British Crown. In my view, such an arrangement would not be of any advantage to Sri Lanka.

It has also been recommended by the OHCHR report on web page 250 that the Sri Lankan government develop a vetting process to ‘remove from office’ safety force personnel who are believed to have been involved in human rights violations. Nobody can, or should be removed from workplace on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations or on mere suspicions. The government must be mindful of the fact that these recommendations are becoming made by forces that attempted their greatest to quit the final offensive against the LTTE but failed.

The OHCHR has also advisable the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the Public Security Ordinance and the formulation of a new national security framework. Sri Lanka would not have survived as a state if not for these laws. The public security laws of a sovereign nation ought to be primarily based on an assessment of threats and other such factors and not according to the dictates of an international organization which does not specialize in public security.

I want to request the government to study the legal opinions on the law of armed conflict and humanitarian law given to the Commission of Inquiry on Disappearances by Sir Desmond De Silva QC, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, Rodney Dixon, David Crane and Paul Newton and contemplate circulating these to UNHRC member states –in certain the detailed report on the law of armed conflict in relation to the allegations produced against Sri Lanka which was submitted to the Commission on Disappearances by Sir Desmond De Silva recently. The views of these international lawyers should in my view, be incorporated in any detailed response to the OHCHR report.

Some politicians have been telling the individuals that all these international initiatives are based on my joint communiqué with the UN Secretary Common of 23 Might 2009. I see that as a deliberate try to mislead the men and women and seek justification for their personal cooperation with interventionist foreign forces. There was practically nothing in my joint communiqué with the UN Secretary Basic about war crimes investigations and hybrid or nearby war crimes courts. All that the Sri Lankan government undertook in that joint communiqué was to address ‘grievances’. The accelerated improvement of the north, the holding of the Eastern and Northern provincial council elections, the setting up of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and the Commission of Inquiry into Disappearances have been all measures taken in that spirit.

In reality in the course of the debate on the resolution that set up the OHCHR investigation on Sri Lanka in March 2014, the Indian, Cuban and Pakistani Ambassadors to the UNHRC taking the floor 1 after the other said in a single voice that the US backed resolution had not taken into account the wide ranging measures taken by the government to address outstanding issues, which includes the setting up of the LLRC. That was one particular of the factors they decided not to support the proposal for an OHCHR investigation against Sri Lanka.

By Niranjan Canagasooryam &#8211

Long Distance Nationalism &#8211 Dangerous For Sri Lanka Reasoning behind the behaviour of the Sri Lankan diaspora

For the objective of this post, I refer to the Sri Lankan diaspora as these Sri Lankans who have migrated to a foreign country permanently and not these who are temporarily working or residing in foreign nations. Estimates suggest that the total Sri Lankan diaspora amounts to roughly two million, of which, it is estimated about 1.two million are of Tamil ethnicity and 800,000 of Sinhalese ethnicity.

A sizeable proportion of the Tamil diaspora migrated following the black July riots in 1983 exactly where they fled in worry for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. The ensuing migration was the result of the ongoing civil war that posed poor living conditions and a continuous fear for security. This group of the Tamil diaspora are scarred with tragic tales and horrific memories of the darker side of Sri Lanka’s previous resulting in mixed emotions. Externally they bear deep hatred and open anger towards the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) for being the sole explanation that they fled their motherland. Internally, they feel what I refer to as “survivor’s guilt” when feeling privileged for achieving material accomplishment in their adoptive nations, they are also faced with the guilt for the fate of the much less fortunate loved ones members, community and homeland that they had left behind. In wrestling with this guilt, this section of the Tamil diaspora strongly voice out on GOSL who are overly nationalistic and a single that still fails to pay heed to the plight of the Tamils living in the north and east of Sri Lanka.

The majority of the Sinhalese diaspora migrated to seek economic accomplishment and upon reaching material good results, they feel something which I refer to as “wealth seeker’s guilt” exactly where they really feel the enduring guilt for leaving behind their motherland in order to accomplish material success and even unfairly lampooned as shallow wealth seekers. In wrestling with their personal demons, they support governments that strongly toe on nationalistic lines with anti-west sentiments.

The frequent complex faced by both ethnicities of the diaspora, is that they endure getting the perpetual outsider in white-dominated Christian societies, even though, the tide is turning with some moving into mainstream political life in their adoptive countries.

Dangers of Extended Distance Nationalism

While nationalism is an adored patriotic emotion, extended distance nationalism can pose numerous threats as it eludes reality at the grass-root level. Nowadays, the web creates a sense of immediacy for an idealised ‘homeland’ with no the wisdom of real lived expertise. This means that passions of expatriate communities can be very easily inflamed as the diaspora wrestle with their personal alienation and demons. Person nationalistic values are rooted from an individual’s own experiences as such, it is apparent that there will be conflicting values or sentiments for each and every group. This is perhaps why George Orwell commented that nationalism is ‘the worst enemy of peace’.

The Sri Lankan diasporas do not vote in Sri Lanka, and rightly so, as all politics are eventually regional. Democratic politics is rooted in the ground realities of municipality and townships and not in imaginary suggestions and hankering for an idyllic Sri Lankan from thousands of miles away. GOSL fortunes are not going to be decided in Toronto or London, so why it is important for GOSL to toil for excellent relations with the diaspora community?

Expatriate communities usually tend to be far far more conservative than domestic ones, precisely since the assaults on self-esteem are so wonderful in adoptive nations. The Zionist cause was, and is, championed by American Jews the Khalistan demand was run by expatriate Sikhs in Canada several Irish Americans supported these in Ireland waging war for the Irish identity and similarly at house, the LTTE received path, leadership and funding from Tamils residing in western societies. This distinctively demonstrates the danger of the pertaining strength of nationalism from the diaspora who frequently confuse the values of self to these of the nation.

Conclusion

The GOSL requirements to engage with the diaspora and continuing to ignore their existence or failing to be far more inclusive, can grow to be an exercising in polarising society rather than uniting it. In essence, it is pertinent that the GOSL ensures that the sentiments of Sri Lankans living in Sri Lanka is also migrated to the diaspora. In reality, long distance nationalism is unsafe for Sri Lanka and it is in this context the GOSL ought to have an inclusive method exactly where it embraces all stakeholders of Sri Lanka even the diaspora and in return these stakeholders ought to cease putting an “I just before Sri Lanka”.

A concerned group of Sri Lankan foreign policy observers have referred to as upon President Maithripala Sirisena to right away table &#8220Presidential Commission&#8217s International Advisors Report&#8221 on the final phase of the conflict at the ongoing Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva.

We publish beneath the petition sent by a group of civil society members, retired diplomats, ex Parliamentarians and expatriates requesting the President of Sri Lanka to table the Report on the 2nd Mandate of the Presidential Commission on Missing Persons immediately at Human Rights Council.

His Excellency Maithripala Sirisena,
President of Sri Lanka

Your Excellency,

We the undersigned,  are very concerned about the mechanisms proposed in the Report of the  UN Higher Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Investigation on Sri Lanka, which was presented to the UN Human Rights Council  in Geneva by Prince Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the 16th of September.

We are certain perturbed that the UNHRC conclusions had no opportunity to consider the rigorous legal &amp military evaluation  conducted  by the international advisory council, that had on the 15th of August 2015 completed its process by issuing a report to the Government on the final phase of the war in Sri Lanka as stipulated in the 2nd Mandate of the Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints concerning Missing Persons, otherwise known as the &#8220Paranagama Commission&#8220.

Therefore, we would like to draw your consideration to two separate paragraphs in UNHCR report, which itself laments the reality that the UN Human Rights Council members and specially the OHCR group that undertook a complete investigation into alleged severe violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by each parties in Sri Lanka throughout the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), had been not privy to the report on the  2nd Mandate of the Paranagama Commission. The advanced unedited version of the report that was released on the 11th of  September 2015 stated as follows:

&#8220Following signals of engagement by the newly elected Government of Sri Lanka in January 2015, and the possibility that additional details might grow to be offered for the investigation, the Human Rights Council accepted the Higher Commissioner’s recommendation to defer consideration of the report until the 30th session.&#8221

&#8220At time of writing there had been indications that the Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints regarding Missing Persons appointed by the earlier Government had received a further extension to full its perform,  despite widespread issues raised about its credibility and effectiveness.  The International Advisory Council appointed by the preceding Government to assistance the Commission on the second, expanded mandate it had been provided to investigate  alleged violations  in the final stages of the conflict has not been extended but is believed to have submitted its report.  In June 2015, two additional Commissioners were appointed to expedite the hearing of situations.  In July 2015, the Government also announced the appointment of a particular investigation group to expedite investigation into some instances, despite the fact that its status is not recognized .&#8221

It is clear from perusing the above paragraphs of the Geneva HRC&#8217s Report,  (please draw your attenton to the highlighted section)  that the UN Human Rights Council was awaiting the release of the report carried out as per the 2nd mandate of the Paranagama Commission.  It is also curious as to how the certain reference to the International Advisory Council, which was naturally referring to the professional panel assembled to carry out the 2nd mandate of teh Paranagama Commission,  had been omitted in the final version of the HRC Reprot that was released to the public on the 16th of September. We would urge your Excellency to investigate this matter, and find out as to who from the Ministry of External Affairs had advised the UN HRC to drop this reference from their report.

As your Excellency knows, this Commission was established by the previous Government of Sri Lanka in response to the calls by the international community to have a credible domestic investigation process, and had its mandate expanded on the 15th of July  2014, to inquire into the matters of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and therefore secured the services of numerous leading internationally renowned legal and military experts like  Sir Desmond De Silva Q.C. , Professor David Crane,  Sir Geoffrey Good Q.C. and Major General John Holmes, the former commander of the SAS, to give help to the Commission with regard to international humanitarian law, international human rights law, customary international law and the laws of armed conflict usually.
The second mandate of the Paranagama Commission was as a result expected to inquire into the information and circumstances that resulted in the principle loss of civilian life in the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka and to issue a report on or before the 15th of August 2015.   Sir Desmond De Silva Q.C. and Professor David Crane, were each chief prosecutors of an international criminal tribunal.   They were both picked personally by the Secretary General of the United Nations to discharge these roles.   In that part, they were both appointed at a level of an Beneath Secretary General of the United Nations. Sir Geoffrey Nice Q.C. was the lead prosecutor in the case against  Slobodan Milosevic, the former President of Yugoslavia.  In reality, all 3 of them, have every single prosecuted a head of state.  Sir Desmond prosecuted the former President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, and had him arrested  and prosecuted for war crimes, for which he is now serving 50 years in prison.

It is imperative, that this 1st official report from the Government of Sri Lanka, prepared with help from independent international legal and military pros, is tabled forthwith to the ongoing Human Rights Council in Geneva,  so that it tends to make a meaningful impact. It is only correct that the 47 voting member nations of the Human Rights Council have an opportunity to read and digest Sri Lanka’s personal independent report in order that they may make an informed judgement prior to the conclusions of the final deliberations on Sri Lanka by the HRC.

We are deeply concerned to learn from media reports and the statements issued by the Minister of External Affairs, that this vital report dealing with the 2nd mandate of the Paranagama Commission, which has been produced offered to your workplace more than a month ago, has not as yet been presented to the members of the  UN Human Rights Council, which commenced its sessions on the 14th September 2015.

It has  been recommended that the present Government has been influenced by a some lobbies  to delay the release of this report till following the Geneva sessions are successfully over, so that the unverified allegations of up to 40,000 civilian deaths in the final months of the war contained in the Darusman Report remains unchallenged and intact.

The announcement created in Geneva by the Minister of External Affairs, Hon. Mangala Samaraweera, that the Paranagama Report would be presented to the Sri Lankan Parliament later this month suggests that the Government of Sri Lanka  has been  misled into keeping this report from becoming regarded as by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. It is critical that your Excellency is appropriately briefed on the Geneva method, and we would like to take the liberty to bring to your attention that though the OHCHR had given the Government of Sri Lanka five days to respond, and that deadline has already expired, the Government nevertheless has the correct to table this report at the UNHRC, as the final resolution draft is nonetheless in circulation, and would only get finalized on the 24th of September 2015, and only be taken in for consideration on the 30th of September.

Consequently, in the interest of transparency and excellent governance, we are incredibly concerned that this critical Paranagama Report, prepared with the help of the aforementioned distinguished experts, that was expected to delve into the allegations created by the Darusman Panel, which the OHCHR was expecting has not been presented to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva this week.

As Your Excellency is also conscious, certain lobbies produced an attempt to influence you against Sir Desmond De Silva, QC and the international advisory council that ready this crucial report for the Paranagama Commission, by submitting a petition to you on the 4th of August 2015, imploring on you to rescind his appointment and discontinue the panel  just ten days before they have been anticipated to release their report!

Your Excellency would have noticed that the petition was also copied to Prince Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Mr. Pablo de Grieff, the United Nations Unique Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Reparations and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, in a deliberate try to discredit the Paranagama Report in advance of its release. The petition based its request on a complaint to the Bar Requirements Board in England against Sir Desmond.

What was hidden from everyone’s eyes, was that the organization creating the complaint in the UK was the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace &amp Justice, which has listed the co-author of the Darusman Report, Ms Yasmin Sooka, as its Executive Director!

The TNA M.P.  Mr. M.A. Sumanthiran, led the campaign against Sir Desmond and the international panel in Sri Lanka, raising the matter in Parliament on the 17th of  March 2015 and urged the government itself to forward a complaint against Sir Desmond de Silva to the Bar Requirements Board in England. Thankfully better sense prevailed, and we commend your Government for ignoring Mr. Sumanthiran&#8217s request.

Possessing failed in his try to convince your Government to do this, Mr. Sumanthiran seemed to have secured Yasmin Sooka’s help to lodge the complaint in the UK.  That complaint was utilised by many neighborhood civil society groups as the basis to send you a petition, in a last minute try to sabotage the 2nd Mandate Report of the Paranagama Commission.

There seems to be a nexus in between numerous men and women and groups, some of them separatist groups, based on their determination to tarnish the image of Sri Lanka with in specific the false allegation of “genocide” against Sri Lanka. Consequently, they are anxious to avoid the release of the aforementioned Paranagama Report to the UN Human Rights Council, as that has been ready with inputs from an extremely credible and eminent panel of advisers.

Maintaining reports unavailable to the public and international stakeholders is not constant with the great governance principles. Transparency is vital, and it is the duty and obligation of the Government to hold the UN Human Rights Council fully informed at the earliest chance feasible, as the reconciliation process in our nation can only succeed if all communities are satisfied that our elected Government is acting impartially and with credibility.

We the undersigned, consequently, call upon Your Excellency to give instructions to the Minister of External Affairs of Sri Lanka to immediately table the report dealing with the 2nd mandate of the Paranagama Commission at the UN Human Rights Council and also the Udalagama Report and to make the very best efforts to distribute copies of this report widely to not just the 47 members states of the HRC, but to all 193 member states of the UN represented in Geneva, and to all the NGO’s and other international bodies attending the UN HRC sessions in Geneva, such as members of the international media and feel tank institutions.

We also urge Your Excellency to present this report yourself to the Secretary Common of the United Nations, when you check out New York later this month to attend the UN General Assembly Sessions.  Please also use that opportunity to distribute the report widely to all member countries of the UN,  as the choices in Geneva are influenced by the political policy decision taken at their respective capitals.

The citizens of Sri Lanka and the expatriate Sri Lankan community are awaiting a credible response from the Government of Sri Lanka in the wake of the Geneva OHCHR report. It is the citizens of  Sri Lanka who are the ones who will be most affected by the choices taken in Geneva, and therefore to have an informed view of  our contemporary history in their journey towards reconciliation is essential.

Given the feasible impact on the people of Sri Lanka of choices that will be taken in Geneva, the release of these reports must be carried out right away, and not soon after choices are taken by the UN Human Rights Council.

Your Excellency, thank you for your consideration of our request.

Thank you.

Signatories to this petition

Hon. Veerasingham Anandasangaree,  Sri Lanka
Former member of Parliament of Sri Lanka, and present  Leader,  Tamil United  Liberation Front (TULF)

Prof Rajiva Wijesingha, Colombo Sri Lanka
(Former member of Parliament of Sri Lanka and Head of the Peace Secretariat and delegate to UNHRC)

Dr. Dayan Jayetilleka, Colombo, Sri Lanka
(Former Ambassador/Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Former Vice- President of UNHRC former Ambassador to France and Permanent Delegate to UNESCO)

Tamara Kunanayagam, Paris, France
(Former Ambassador/Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva)

Chris Dharmakirti,  Colombo, Sri Lanka
(Former head of National Council for Economic Improvement (NCED) and Strategic Enterprise Management Agency (SEMA),  and delegate to UNCLOS  in New York)

Dr. Ranil Senanayake, Colombo, Sri Lanka
(Systems Ecologist,  and delegate to UNEP)

Dr. N.P. Wijayananda
(Former Chairman of the Geological Survey &amp Mines Bureau and delegate to UNCLOS in New York)

Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe, Colombo Sri Lanka
(Human Rights Activist &amp Specialist on Conflict Resolution)

Dr. T.L. Gunuruwan
(Former secretary to the Ministry of Transport &amp University Academic)

Manohara Silva,  Colombo, Sri Lanka
(Constitutional Law Expert)

Key General  Lalin Fernando, Colombo, Sri Lanka
(Retired Officer of the Army)

Col. Anil Amarasuriya, Homagama, Sri Lanka
(Retired Officer of the Army)

Chanaka Ellawala,  Colombo, Sri Lanka

Dr. Ivan Amarasinghe,  UK

Dr. Anula  Wijesundera , Colombo, Sri Lanka

Sanja Jayatilleka,  Colombo Sri Lanka

Hasina Leelarathna,  Los Angeles, USA

H.L.D. Mahindapala,  Australia

Asoka Weerasinghe, Ottawa, Canada

Ajantha Premarathna,  Sri Lanka

L Wanasundera, Sri Lanka

Mal Munasinha,  Ontario, Canada

Ranjith Soysa, Victoria, Australia

Mahinda Gunasekera, Toronto, Canada

Surein Raghvan,  Toronto, Canada

Gamini Gunewardena,  Sri Lanka

Mal Munasinha,  Ontario, Canada

Charles Perera,  Sri Lanka

David Blacker, Sri Lanka

CC:
Hon. Prime Minister  Of Sri Lanka
Hon. Minister of External Affairs of Sri Lanka
Mr. Maxwell Paranagama,  Chairman of the  Presidential Commission on Missing Persons
Mr. Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein – UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Mr. Pablo de Grieff &#8211 United Nations Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Reparations and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence
Yasmin Sooka, Executive Director, International Truth &amp Justice Project Sri Lanka
M.P. M Sumanthiran,  Tamil National Alliance
47 members of the UN Human Rights Council:
Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, China, Congo, Côte d&#8217Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Macedonia, UAE, UK, USA, Venezuela and Vietnam

The Chief Minister of Northern Province C.V. Wigneswaran has welcomed the UN report on war crimes.

Wigneswaran who all through had named for an international mechanism of inquiry to investigate war crimes charges has mentioned that he is pleased the report called for a Special Court with international judges and prosecutors.

Wigneswaran, a former Judge has mentioned that Sri Lanka does not have judges and prosecutors who can take up war crimes cases.

Earlier, Wigneswaran told Colombo Telegraph that no Sri Lankan judge will ever find fault with the military.

Meanwhile he has also welcomed the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly calling for an international inquiry into war crimes in Sri Lanka and urging the Indian Central government to move a robust resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for such an inquiry.

&#8220We thank Selvi Jayalalithaa for the intense concern she has shown more than our predicament. It augurs properly for the future. It demonstrates a sense of togetherness that exists between Tamils all over the planet,&#8221 Wigneswaran had told the media.

&#8220The resolution of the Tamil Nadu assembly is on the lines of the resolution the Northern Provincial Council passed earlier this month,&#8221 he had observed.

By R. Hariharan –

Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is neither a stranger to the inner circle of New Delhi polity nor an unfamiliar personality in the North Block. However, for the duration of the final 1 year his profile has undergone a welcome make more than. The fortunes of this seasoned political leader, identified more for his failures than successes in his repeated forays for power, pulled a political coup of sorts. In league with Maithripala Sirisena, one more political veteran even though from the opposition, he thwarted former president Mahinda Rajapaksa&#8217s bid for energy twice!

The duo defeated Rajapaksa&#8217s electoral bid for a third term as president in January and seven months later they outsmarted Rajapaksa’s try to comeback to power utilizing his loyalists in the seemingly more potent coalition – the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA), in the recently held general election.

As a result Prime Mininister Wickremesinghe now enjoys power with a public endorsement of his political agenda twice inside a year. Regardless of political obstacles the Wickremesinghe-Sirisena duo had made some progress in living up to the expectations of the public. Their promises include increasing the accountability of the executive president to the parliament, empowerment of the prime minister and cleaning up the administration of corruption and cronyism. Their perform carried out so far, although still not completed, has restored Sri Lanka’s credibility which was eroded each at house and abroad by former president Rajapaksa’s autocratic style of governance.

Wickremesinghe is heading a national alliance government, the 1st since 1977, in which the ruling United National Party (UNP) and the principal opposition the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) have come with each other. This has enhanced the possibilities of advertising a national agenda to focusing on improvement in an environment of unity, peace and harmony. Former president Rajapaksa, failed to do just that in spite of his singular success in receiving rid of the LTTE once and for all. He frittered away five years of peace that followed the military victory in Might 2009 by focusing on strengthening his help base. As a result the socio-political atmosphere was vitiated by acrimony, distrust, religious and ethnic polemics and strife.

This has increased the probabilities of the present government making additional progress in its reform agenda regardless of the widespread cynicism in the political milieu. But Wickremesinghe would be more confident than ever ahead of when he visits New Delhi nowadays for the very first time right after becoming prime minister.

There is a lot of convergence in between the leadership in India and Sri Lanka in their outlook than ahead of. Wickremesinghe’s agenda to correct Sri Lanka’s tilt towards China after Rajapaksa had succumbed to its &#8220fatal&#8221 charm in the locations of strategic safety and trade was 1 such area. So it was not surprising to uncover the Ranil- Maithripala duo welcomed Prime Minister Modi&#8217s renewed efforts to build a broadened and enduring connection with Sri Lanka when he visited the island nation some months back. They reciprocated his wish to get rid of other kinks in the relations among the two countries that had appeared during the earlier regime. This makes the Sri Lankan leader’s New Delhi visit a specific one as Sri Lanka government probably enjoys greater credibility in the corridors of North Block than Rajapaksa ever did.

Both Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and President Sirisena have also shown their readiness to act upon the concerns of both India and the West such as the US, which were dealt with superficially in the course of ten years of Rajapaksa rule. These issues are confident to be incorporated in Modi-Wickremesinghe talks even if they are not aired in public due to national sensitivity more than some of them in both countries.

Both India and the West were irritated by Rajapaksa’s ploy to twist their issues over his government&#8217s dismal human rights record throughout and following the ethnic conflict to whip up Sinhala nationalism and encourage xenophobia for his political benefit. Similarly, he distorted their insistence on resuming the political dialogue approach with Tamil polity to resolve their long standing demand for equity with Sinhala majority as encouragement to Tamil separatism.

This had produced issues for India as its adverse fallout in Tamil Nadu politics adversely affected the fortunes of successive governments in New Delhi. This had cramped India’s efforts to meaningfully contribute to create a win-win connection with Sri Lanka. This weakness was exploited by China to enter Sri Lanka in a huge way.

Even though the coalition era has ended in New Delhi, ethnic amity in Sri Lanka will continue to influence India’s policy not only due to its impact on Tamil Nadu politics, but also in the interest of national safety. India and Sri Lanka are geographically too close to every other producing their national security interests complimentary than contentious. This makes it required for them to create a mutually reinforcing partnership, notwithstanding their unequal sizes and strengths.

Political dispensation for Sri Lanka Tamils will continue to stay one particular of lynchpins to progress India-Sri Lanka realtions. The Wickremesinghe government had tried to break the impasse in resuming the dialogue procedure with Tamils within the ambit of 13th Amendment (13A) to the Constitution which is supported by India. Nonetheless, it will be politically hard for the Sri Lanka government to grant land and police powers envisaged in the 13A to the provincial councils. We can anticipate this situation to come up when Modi and Wickremesinghe meet, though it is a moot point regardless of whether it would go beyond creating cordial statements.

For both India and the West, Rajapaksa reneging on his promises to them attend their issues went beyond matters of Sri Lanka’s internal politics it became a challenge to their strategic power assertion specifically right after he got cozy with China and provided a welcome strategic foothold for China in Sri Lanka in India’s close proximity and midway in the Indian Ocean sea lanes by means of which bulk of global maritime trade is performed. This assumes specific significance in the light of China growing assertion of is naval power in Asia- Pacific area, specifically in the Indian Ocean.

From the Sri Lankan viewpoint, there are some issues exactly where it wants India’s help and understanding. The UN Human Rights Council Rights Council (UNHRC) discussion on Sri Lanka’s comply with up actions taken on the US-sponsored resolution passed session 3 years back would come up on Friday, right after the report of the UN Human Rights Commissioner is presented. Although the US is probably to modify its insistence on a UN sponsored international inquiry by accepting a domestic inquiry with the assistance of the UNHRC, Sri Lanka needs Indian assistance to broaden its help base. Though the US move has met with some political criticism in Tamil Nadu and agitation by fringe elements egged on by the Sri Lanka Diaspora, India had always supported domestic inquiries in preference to international ones. In view of this the compromise resolution recommended by the US would almost certainly be supported by India.

The second situation is Indo-Sri Lanka trade. During his Colombo pay a visit to, Prime Minister Modi had revived the idea of a Comprehensive Financial Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in between India and Sri Lanka. India had mooted the idea and it nearly came via in 2008. Nevertheless, in the face of protest from neighborhood enterprise, the Rajapaksa government created cold feet and gave it up following that. Sri Lanka is facing exceptional economic crunch and troubles of debt servicing for the servicing the loans it had incurred. Even the IMF had been lukewarm to the thought of lending much more to Sri Lanka to service Chinese loans.

So Sri Lanka urgently demands India’s hand holding to see it via its crisis. Nevertheless, it will be difficult for Sri Lanka government to openly help CEPA as it is probably a no-go location in Sri Lanka politics. However, it appears Sri Lanka would not be averse to operate out an economic arrangement comparable to CEPA though it may be called by a various name. This was indicated in a report in Sunday Times, Colombo which quoted Sri Lanka Deputy Foreign Minister Harsha de Silva as saying that CEPA troubles have been likely to be among other essential issues throughout the bilateral talks between the two leaders. He added, “We should push for such agreements with nations like India. However, we need to not blindly enter into such agreements. We must study in detail our personal experiences and that of other equivalent countries to negotiate the best deal for us. Any bilateral or multilateral trade agreement that rewards Sri Lanka have to be pursued.”

*Col. R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence officer, is related with the South Asia Analysis Group, and the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail:[email protected] Website: www.col.hariharan.information

Sri Lanka&#8217s new government has blocked www.mahinda.info, a website run by Mahinda Rajapaksa Info Centre. The web site has been blocked considering that Friday by one particular of the net service providers, Sri Lanka Mobitel, a totally-owned subsidiary of Sri Lanka Telecom.

Final January President Sirisena appointed his brother, Pallewatta Gamaralalage Kumarasinghe Sirisena as the Chairman of Sri Lanka Telecom.

President Maithripala Sirisena gave a distinct order to lift direct on the web censorship as a single of his first acts in power. Web sites can be “prohibited or be topic to supervision and control” below S.69 of the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Act 1991 – but only under ministerial authority, and below a publicly announced order.

No such order was produced to replace the directive issued by President Sirisena in January.

Related posts

Preserve The Guarantee, Shield Net Freedom In Sri Lanka: Worldwide Totally free Expression Orgs Urge Mangala

&nbsp

By Mahesan Niranjan &#8211

Rapidly forwarding to the Eighteenth of May possibly 2016, we observe noisy scenes in the Sri Lankan Parliament. A few members insist that the Prime Minister ought to intervene and quit separation from taking place. They are a noisy minority. The majority, nonetheless, agree with Prime Minster Wikramaathiththan’s stubborn stance: “The right to separation has already been subject to maximum devolution. The central government will not interfere.”

Gosh! Who is Prime Minister Wikramaathiththan, and how can he devolve the most sensitive subjects in our politics – the right to separation?

The lately formed jumbo cabinet of ministers was a disappointment to numerous of you. “Have we gone back to the poor old days?” you worried. Distracted by that, you failed to notice an innovation, the appointment of a Minister for National Dialog.

“But we already have dialog no?” an aunt of mine remarked, thinking of the telephone business.

The new Ministry for National Dialog has, as a starting point of achieving their objectives, offered new names, with minimal edits to their present ones, to the major characters in the governance of our country. The aim is to remind these in power that reconciliation begins by the thought experiment of putting oneself in the other man’s shoes.

“Let peace commence with me,” is the slogan written on the entrance to the new ministry.

Wikramaathiththan is a single such name, the epistemology of which I will clarify now, and leave other individuals to your imaginations.

Normal readers of ampulimaamaa will know this character – a king whose job it was to catch a genie living in the banyan tree and bottle it. The genie was intelligent and each time he caught it, it would inform him a story to distract his interest and escape back the banyan tree. The king, nevertheless, was not an individual to give up in the face of serial failures. He tried and attempted, once again and once again, and in the most current try had caught the genie. Will he be able to hold onto it, we are not positive but.

*Photograph of King Wikramaathiththan capturing the ghost scanned from the author’s ampulimaamaa archives

Prime Minister Wikramaathiththan had introduced a bill to set up a kind of governance that was to devolve significantly power and responsibility to regions of different granularities: provinces, districts, municipalities and villages. Each village chief was offered a Pajero jeep, petrol allowance and had devolved power to decide what concerns need to be asked on the five page kind to be filled before cutting down a palmyrah tree in your back garden. Obviously, if palmyrah does not grow in you portion of the country, there is no want for this five-web page form, is there? That is the beauty of devolved governance.

PM Wikramaathiththan produced persuasive arguments in support of his devolution bill.

“Consider how we Sri Lankans have been poor at solving issues. We do not address troubles of our youth in time. Alternatively we just let them get worse, let the pressure of aggravation develop up so our youth take up arms and rebel. That is when we bring out our tried and tested resolution, don’t we?

“We kill.

“Consider how we handled troubles faced by minorities in our nation. We have recognized these difficulties, have set up so numerous commissions, held inquiries and have signed a number of pacts. Despite the diligence with which gentlemen tasked with obtaining options worked, when it came to implementation, we just shelved the reports and ditched the Pacts, didn’t we? We had a tried and tested response when challenged on this efficiency.

“What difficulty?”

The PM, provided his track record in politics should have felt duty bound to feel of a extended term solution. Right after all, throughout his extended profession, he had observed, amongst other items, how his uncle sponsored the riots of 1977 and 1983, how his mates travelled to the North to make certain that the library was burnt, how the Hanuman army forced an Accord on us, how a previous president ordered the surrender of some 600 policemen who had been then lined up and shot, and, above all, he have to have been a bit far more than bystander of the brutality with which the rebellion in the 1988-90 period was put down.

Desirous of placing all that in the previous, we welcome his devolution plan to attain ever-lasting peace in our country.

Even so, the Devolution Bill faced strong objections from the Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. Trigonometry Aarachchige Sampath (a new name given to him by the Ministry for National Dialogue, of course).

Rt. Hon. Sampath mentioned, as leader of the opposition, he had to represent the majority Sinhala men and women as effectively. Hence he held the view that any devolution need to be opposed &#8212 nipped in the bud, so to speak, simply because it is the very first step towards separation.

“Which college did you go to? Did they not teach you authoritative texts of history to know that warriors from Tamil Nadu will swim across the Palk Strait and butcher us? Our culture, unique in the identified Universe, will be ruined, this being the only country we have. Would the Prime Minister note they [Tamil Nadu fellows] are already engaged in doing just that, with low high quality tv soaps with Sinhala sub-titles broadcast on numerous channels

“Cultural genocide is what I contact it!” Hon. Sampath roared like a lion in Parliament.

Contrary to repeated polite requests from the Ministry for National Dialog, Hon Sampath has not given up the “G-word”, as he is significantly indebted to it for his electoral prospects. If he didn’t say it frequently enough, Chief Minister Gandalf might obtain ownership of it, he feared.

All through the debate, one member was chanting a mantra from a corner of the Property. It was the Vanni representative, Rt. Hon. Ku Rangupillai. “Police powers, land powers, police powers, land powers” he was heard repeating to himself.

The constitutional lawyer Hon. Samaanthiram MP intervened. He is either a member of the government or most likely from the opposition, we are not really sure. However that ambiguity is to be celebrated as a distinct innovation of our new-discovered democracy. Hon. Samaanthiram patiently explained, in all 3 languages, the following: “Policing is not about energy policing need to be a service.”

“In Sri Lanka,” Samaanthiram said, “police had the energy to beat confessions out of suspects, and based on those confessions, folks could be locked up and keys thrown away. In theory, this is nevertheless feasible since the laws enabling these are nonetheless in spot.

“But remember, prior to 2009, such energy was devolved and practiced in the Vanni, with threats of hands becoming chopped off for voting at elections, legs getting chopped off for operating away with no carrying out your patriotic duty of acting as human shields, and bullets in your head if you believed something distinct from what the believed police had thought, proper? Do you want to go back to those dark days?” Samaanthiram asked.

“And it is unwise to claim power over land in such low-lying places,” the eminent lawyer continued, “have you not heard of worldwide warning? If we want to defend our culture for centuries to come, we need to have to find actual estate on high ground someplace. I am confident you have heard about Poompukaar,” he reminded his colleague of the ancient city of Tamil civilization, now lost to the sea. “Mind you, over half of our people live outside the land more than which you claim energy.”

The apparent logic in his explanations had no impact on Hon. Ku Rangupillai who continued to chant “police powers, land powers, police powers, land powers,” for he knew carrying out so was important for his future electoral prospects.

From the opposition benches Rt. Hon Patriotwasa was also opposed to the Devolution Bill. Now, Mr Patriotwasa is a person who claims to be a descendent of the lion, but the well-known belief in Sri Lanka is he is a descendent of the donkey. A donkey in lions clothes, you may possibly say. No, it is more complex. He barks. The PM says that this behaviour is similar to that of monkeys. Geneticists reconstructing evolutionary trees are much puzzled by all this. Which of the 4 did our patriot actually descend from?

Hon. Patriotwasa strongly condemned the bill and in order to demonstrate his patriotism vowed to go on a hunger strike: “I shall starve until you withdraw the bill or my body and soul separate, whichever happens first” he shouted and walked out of the Home.

That is the separation – the possible separation of the body and soul of the most patriotic member of our Parliament – is what was pointed out at the beginning of this story.

Are you surprised that Prime Minsiter Wikramaathiththan’s refusal to intervene – of the centre not interfering with regional choice generating &#8212 had robust support in the Residence?

By Chaminda Weerawardhana &#8211

Rajavarothiam Sampanthan MP (RS) has been appointed as the Leader of the Opposition of the Eighth Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. MP because 1970, RS also deserves the title ‘Father of the Home’. Even analysts not usually sympathetic to the political ideology of Tamil self-determination concur that RS has a track record of acting with decorum and dignity in debate. This also applies to his celebration colleagues, who, unlike several a Sinhalese and Moor MP, conduct themselves gracefully inside and outdoors Parliament.

TNA: the strongest ‘Tamil’ voice?

Because the War’s end, the RS-led TNA has been successful at each and each election held in the two provinces. The absence of credible political alternatives, other than the EPDP that tarnished its reputation by way of its [in Tamil eyes] unholy alliance with the Rajapaksa regime, UNP’s Vijayakala Maheswaran issue in Jaffna and the SLMC in the East, there is no political movement in the two provinces that can equal, in any substantial terms, the TNA’s electoral strength, the reasons for which ought to form the subject of a separate article.

Some Sinhala nationalists query RS’s positions on the rights of his community, his emphasis on ensuring the Tamils’ political aspirations and proper to live as equal citizens. That RS’s voice on the rights of his people wants to be heard, respected and honoured is a offered. It is the principal signifies by way of which, post-war, the dignity of Tamil society can be restored and much more importantly, the Tamils’ position as full-fledged citizens of Sri Lanka can be enhanced and enlivened. These becoming elected to Parliament by Tamil voters have every correct to raise issues that concern their voters, constituencies and electoral districts.

New duty of ‘national’ relevance?

For the very first time in his political profession, RS has been granted a position of national relevance inside the legislature. His parliamentary responsibilities have been doubly redoubled overnight, going way beyond these of an MP representing a certain district, and a celebration leader representing a offered demographic. From now on, RS has the duty of the complete Parliamentary Opposition upon his shoulders. As he described to the media on the way out of the Property quickly following becoming appointed Opposition Leader, he is completely conscious of the nature of his new role, and has the prospective to perform properly.

RS, this writer believes, is also competent to identify the most advisable forward method, when reconciling his function as the ‘leader’ representing his ethnic community in parliament, and his national function as Opposition Leader. Reflecting along that line, the most advisable path appears to be that of upholding a ‘policy-based’ method, strongly raising troubles affecting the day-to-day lives of the folks of the Northern and Eastern Provinces, even though simultaneously juxtaposing these with a central focus on problems of national concern.

TNA and JVP: troubled (&amp ‘shared’) legacies?

Sinhala nationalist components in national politics despise each TNA and JVP. Concerning the latter, they continuously evoke that party’s armed resistance of 1971 and particularly 1988-89. The TNA is branded as obtaining been pro-LTTE – the ultimate blasphemy in Sinhala nationalist eyes.

As the second half of the post-war decade unfolds, it is essential for Sri Lankans to collectively reflect upon the fundamental motives that prompted young individuals (from each Sinhalese and Tamil communities) to take up arms and resort to violence against the Sri Lankan state.

In the case of the Sinhalese, key contentious concerns involved class pressures, socioeconomic disparities, lack of possibilities and the grossly unequal distribution of resources. These concerns also concerned Tamil youth, who, in addition, had been ethnically catalogued through university entrance regulations, issues of political representation, difficulties of working out their fundamental civic rights, as nicely as ethnicity and language-primarily based discrimination. For numerous Tamil youth (whose militant outfits sooner or later became the Colombo government’s worst nightmares), discontent also stemmed from discrimination from within the Tamil neighborhood, its class, and very especially caste hierarchies. Therefore their intense anguish at those sophisticated, educated, English-speaking, liberal and more typically than not higher caste Tamil intellectuals and politicos who, in their eyes, had been of an uptight disposition, and had been intent upon ‘preaching’ them – the lesser beings – on conciliatory middle paths and the vices of violent resistance.

TNA: from ethnic politics to national politics?

The TNA and the LTTE are two incredibly different entities, and anyone creating a correlation in between them (the ‘TNA is pro-LTTE’ argument) is only making a display of political and sociocultural illiteracy. In the course of the LTTE’s heyday, as Tamil representatives in the national legislature, the TNA could surely have upheld a self-determination-based discourse, for which they can’t be blamed. Today, the TNA is in the procedure of – and in fairness has been significantly effective at – locating its pleine place in post-war Sri Lankan politics. The TNA has expressed its commitment to a united Sri Lankan state, and in guaranteeing the rights of Tamils inside that framework. Apart from its ‘men of the people’, such as Mavai Senathirajah MP, the TNA has equipped itself with professionals such as Messrs Sumanthiran and Vigneswaran, and upon being elevated to a national-level function, has expressed a commitment to uphold that role’s ‘national’ dimension to the fullest.

TNA and JVP: possibilities of functioning collectively?

The Eighth Parliament gives a unique chance for the TNA and the JVP, the two principal opposition parties, to start a cordial and open-minded dialogue, and perform towards sharing shadow cabinet responsibilities. The JVP has a golden chance to stand by its regularly repeated commitment to national unity and inter-ethnic coexistence. The TNA has a golden opportunity to perform with a national-level party that, regardless of its modest size, occupies a decisive position in the polity, and is composed of educated young leaders, all of them representing not Colombo’s privileged high-tea cliques, but the larger Sinhala (and fairly often Buddhist) neighborhood. The JVP’s composition and inclusivity could also send a crucial message to the TNA, on the importance of going beyond Vellalar gentlemen’s politics, to a political strategy that far better accommodates and represents the Tamil social spectrum, and performs towards elevated respect for parity.

To the cynical observer, some of the aforementioned observations may possibly appear to be somewhat devoid of realism.

However, inventive thinking is the crucial path forward for each the TNA and the JVP, to say the least.