UN political chief voices concern about SL's displaced, says there is a real risk of breeding resentment

Internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in Government-run camps in Sri Lanka lack basic rights of freedom of movement, and the country is not making the expected progress towards a lasting peace in the wake of the end earlier this year to fighting between military forces and Tamil rebels, the United Nations political chief said Friday.
He stressed that the IDP issue is particularly important because it provides Sri Lanka with “an opportunity to move beyond simply ending the fighting to solidifying the peace. As the situation currently stands in the camps, there is a real risk of breeding resentment that will undermine the prospects for political reconciliation in the future.”
B. Lynn Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, told a press conference in Colombo at the end of his visit to Sri Lanka that the UN had not observed the progress expected after the world body and the Government issued a joint statement following the conclusion of fighting with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May.
More than 280,000 IDPs now reside in often congested camps in the north of the country, and Mr. Pascoe – who visited some camps yesterday – said he was very concerned about the lack of freedom of movement for residents and what he called the “closed nature” of the camps.
“People are not free to come or go and they are understandably upset,” he said. “We picked up great frustration on this point in the camps that we visited yesterday. I was told by many – and quite emphatically – that they just want to go home.
“We understand there are security concerns to be addressed. At the same time, this kind of closed regime goes directly against the principles under which we work in assisting IDPs all around the world.”
Mr. Pascoe urged the Government to allow those IDPs who have completed the screening process to leave the camps as they choose, and for those people remaining to be able to exit the camps during the day and to freely meet with family and friends in other sites.
On the last day of his visit to Sri Lanka, Mr. Pascoe held talks today with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, senior Government ministers, military officials, opposition leaders, Tamil politicians and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society groups.
During the meetings the Under-Secretary-General discussed the situation of the IDPs as well as human rights accountability and political reconciliation.
He told the press conference that he was pleased that Walter Kälin, the Secretary-General’s Representative on the human rights of IDPs, will visit the country next week.
But Mr. Pascoe said he remains concerned about the pace of the process of allowing IDPs to return to their former communities.
“If there is more screening to do, it should be speeded up. It appears there are areas where de-mining is not a big concern. For those areas, families who have passed the screening process could be resettled without much further delay. More people should be allowed to stay with relatives and host families.”
Mr. Pascoe said he was informed by the Government today that it intends to both provide day passes to allow people to go to work or visit family and friends and to more aggressively publicize the option of accommodation with relatives and other host families.
“Of course this is not the ultimate solution to the problem of getting people home quickly, but it is an interim measure that reduces congestion in the camps,” he said, calling for the Government to show more transparency and to consult more widely to allay the fears and concerns of the IDPs.
He stressed that the IDP issue is particularly important because it provides Sri Lanka with “an opportunity to move beyond simply ending the fighting to solidifying the peace. As the situation currently stands in the camps, there is a real risk of breeding resentment that will undermine the prospects for political reconciliation in the future.”

Sri Lanka responds to Prof Philip Alston on Channel 4 video

The Government of Sri Lanka welcomes the media statement issued today (17) by Prof. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in which he now acknowledges that the report which was shared with him by the Government leads him to the conclusion that "the views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic".
The Government of Sri Lanka also welcomes Prof. Alston acknowledgement that the government's investigation has been prompt. The government regrets however, that Prof. Alston has characterized the professional investigation as not independent merely because the experts concerned were Sri Lankan.
Prof. Alston does not appear to have carefully perused the Government's Consolidated Response of 09 September in which a URL to Mr Siri Hewawitharana's experience and qualifications was included on page 4.
Contrary to Prof Alton's assertion, the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe, contacted Mr Hewawitharana on 05 September, several days after the short op-ed opinion piece in The Island newspaper appeared and requested him to provide the Minister with a more detailed analysis of the video in the form of a short report. The said report was received on 06 September.
With regard to Dr De Silva, the sole reason for Prof. Alston's characterization of his analysis as partial is that he appears to have been consulted by the Government of Sri Lanka on previous occasions. The Government is of the view that it is quite legitimate to consult acknowledged experts from autonomous academic institutions and this in no way makes the expert part of the Government nor does it render the view tainted by bias.
Moreover, the fact that Prof. Alston now acknowledges that the video needs further investigation to prove its authenticity is sufficient to establish that the work of the experts consulted by the government of Sri Lanka is credible. This also confirms the governments concern that Prof. Alston was unduly hasty in issuing his original press statement concerning the contents of the video in the absence of any credible material.
It would be pertinent to note that the High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomed the Sri Lankan delegation's communication that a prompt investigation had been carried out into this matter. She also mentioned that, being a lawyer herself, she had thought it fit not to make a pronouncement on this issue until the authenticity of the contents of the video in question was established.
The Government is of the view that any further comment on this issue by Prof. Alston should only be consequent to the receipt of fresh and cogent evidence that will enable him to conclude that the video in question is genuine.
-- Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights

IDPs in Sri Lanka's camps growing impatient: UN political chief

Reuters Photo] The United Nations political chief travelled yesterday (Thursday) to northern Sri Lanka to get a first-hand look at the situation of displaced civilians living in Government-run camps, and the status of preparations for their resettlement.
“I saw some efforts under way to make areas suitable for resettlement, both through clearing landmines and rehabilitating schools and economic infrastructure, said B. Lynn Pascoe, the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, who arrived in the country yesterday.
“I also met with people in the camps who want to leave and return to their homes, but cannot do so, and are understandably growing impatient and anxious about their future,” he added.
In May the Government declared victory over the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), ending more than two decades of fighting. There are some 280,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) residing in camps in northern Sri Lanka.
Mr. Pascoe, accompanied by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hussein Bhaila, visited Mannar, where he witnessed preparations to construct a water reservoir for resettled communities, and received a briefing and demonstration by the armed forces on progress in clearing mines from the surrounding Mannar Rice Bowl region.
The delegation then visited two IDP camps and a rehabilitation centre for former LTTE members in Jaffna, before concluding the field visit at the Manik Farms camp in Vavuniya, the largest of the country’s IDP camps.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today voiced his concern about developments regarding the IDPs, as well as the political process and a possible accountability mechanism for alleged human rights violations committed during the armed conflict.
Speaking at his monthly news conference in New York, Mr. Ban said he had discussed these issues with President Mahinda Rajapaksa last Monday, and then dispatched Mr. Pascoe to follow up.
“I have asked him to deliver my letter to the President outlining the concerns of the international community and immediately report back to me,” said the Secretary-General, who also reiterated his concern at the continued detention without charge of two UN staff members in Sri Lanka.
Mr. Pascoe is expected to conclude the two-day visit tomorrow in Colombo, where he will meet with President Rajapaksa and other Government officials, as well as with opposition and Tamil politicians, members of civil society and UN representatives.

Tamil national aspirations, TNA and transnational governance

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) or any other political party claiming that they represent Tamils have no right to proclaim that they have moved away from the 1977 mandate for independence and sovereignty of the Eezham Tamil nation, to satisfy India, Mahinda Rajapaksa or any other power. They may negotiate but without dropping the fundamentals, until any acceptable formula is freshly mandated by all Tamils including those who are now in the diaspora. Meanwhile, the emerging novel concept of transnational governance will be misled if it is orientated merely with an idea of negotiation. It is not just a negotiation platform. There is no need to show Tamils have ‘democratically’ dropped their aspiration just because some powers want it as a pre-requisite for negotiation.


TamilNet Editorial Board

Brutal military victory and inhuman incarceration will make Eezham Tamils to forget their national aspiration is the belief of Colombo and the powers that abetted it in the course of war.
Not that they don’t know that the war and the attitude behind the war have made Eezham Tamils to feel the necessity of their national liberation more than ever now.
But arrogance and greed never see reason.
Some of the powers are very honest in the show. They openly sit on all international intervention. Never hide their greed in grabbing land or resources of Tamils while they are incarcerated and one of them is said to be overtly intimidating Tamil political leaders not to voice political aspirations of their people but to accept formulas dictated by it as solutions.
Then there is another set of powers, which now shed tears for the incarcerated, advice reconciliation for the sake of the unity of the island, urge the diaspora to engage with Colombo government and show semblances of diplomatic and economic pressure just for getting official entry into the scenario.
While the former are not at all recognising their responsibility to the current plight of Tamils, the latter are at least indirectly recognising it, and are demanding for certain immediate humanitarian measures.
However, none of them were so far able to make even little impact in altering the genocidal attitude of Colombo. On the contrary, Colombo is fast institutionalising ethnic totalitarianism in all its forms in the island.
Sense and sensibility would tell anyone that realities in the island demand partition for lasting peace, democratisation, eventual reconciliation and for regional /global cooperation.
But Tamils have to carefully note that none of the powers want to recognise the inevitability and righteousness in the development and demands of Tamil nationalism in the island. Rather they want us to believe that national liberation was only a demand of ‘terrorism’, what exists is only an ordinary ‘minority issue’ and this could be sorted out by reconciliation, development and little international pressure on Colombo to observe human rights.
Everyone knows what is behind this attitude is no sane political ideology but sheer power opportunism.
The powers are fully aware that what they are doing is not going to resolve the conflict in the island. If they are confident in the righteousness of their outlook there is no need for them to worry about an armed struggle erupting in the island again. Their anxiety only reveals that they are wrong in their moves. India’s fear, stemming from its guilt, is very explicit as could be seen from the observations of M K Narayanan recently about the possibilities of Tamil diaspora supporting another armed struggle.
They all come out with a sane advise to Tamils to struggle politically. But what is unholy behind this advice is dictating and coercing Tamils to drop their liberation aspiration even in democratically organised political movements. In short, ‘defeated Tamils’ have no political rights either, even to democratically tell what they want.
This is where Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka and in the diaspora need to take a firm stand and voice it boldly.
When Tamils had the last chance of democratically voicing themselves in 1977, they have given a clear and overwhelming mandate, based on their self-determination, for the creation of an independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam in their homeland, i.e., North and East of the island.
The Tamil National Alliance or any other political party claiming that they represent Tamils have no right to proclaim that they have moved away from this mandate to satisfy India, Mahinda Rajapaksa or any other power. They may negotiate but without dropping the fundamentals, until any acceptable formula is freshly mandated by all Tamils including those who are now in the diaspora. This is a new reality.
The Eezham Tamil diaspora living as free citizens in liberal democratic countries, outside of the dictates of Colombo and New Delhi, has a bigger responsibility in evolving a political formation to represent the hearts of Tamils.
TamilNet has long been writing on democratically formed transnational governance of Eezham Tamils and as prerequisites re-mandating the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution and forming grass root democratic bodies.
It is with sadness we note that according to BBC report Wednesday, the proposal to form a transnational government by V. Rudrakumaran talks only of homeland and self-determination – a truncation of the vital parts of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution.
Some supporting circles of this move said that the phrase ‘transnational government of Tamil Eelam’ covers the rest of Tamil aspirations. They should realise that the phrase ‘Tamil Nadu’ doesn’t mean anything in India.
Why the hesitation in telling what the Tamils have mandated democratically? Who is blocking?
Transnational government is primarily a symbolic as well as a functioning body that should be formed by the free will of the diaspora Tamils upholding the independence and sovereignty of Eezham Tamils in the island. It is an alternative government to be formed democratically when all governments disregarded them.
The whole concept of transnational governance will be misled if it is orientated merely with an idea of negotiation. It is not just a negotiation platform. There is no need to show Tamils have ‘democratically’ dropped their aspiration just because some powers want it as a pre-requisite for negotiation.
Another unsafe move in the announcement for transnational government, in the given hostility of Colombo and some powers, is the call for voter register. All know how totalitarian powers in the past made use of voter register to hunt people. Voter register will make only a faction of core supporters to register and the transnational government will not be truly representative. Attention has to be drawn here how a successful poll was conducted in May this year, among the Tamil diaspora in Norway, without any voter register.
The BBC reporter Wednesday was unkind even to the ‘homeland’ of the proposed transnational government. “The group is clearly still wedded to the idea of a separate homeland, which many observers consider to be defunct after their military defeat,” he said.
This is not a conducive image for the effort when such a government has to be formed with a new and inclusive paradigm. The move for the transnational government has to go beyond the already created image that it is an LTTE project.
According to BBC, the Colombo government has made it clear that it is now hunting for Mr. Rudrakumaran, even though it has no business to interfere into the democratic activities of the free citizens in the diaspora in the liberal democracies.
The best option for a successful transnational government is not making it from the above but evolving it from the grass root. Such a government cannot be intimidated or hijacked by anyone, as it will be prevalent everywhere in the diaspora.
Eezham Tamils in Norway are already discussing the formation of a democratically elected country council, adopting the goal for independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam, which has been mandated by 99 percent of the Norwegian Tamil voters (the voter turn out was 80 percent). If such elected councils in every country could device ways of forming a transnational government, that will be more representative, democratic, secure and forceful.
Re-mandating the main principle of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution, preceding the formation of the transnational government, is vital for setting the goals of the government democratically and in no uncertain terms, convincing everyone of their validity without doubt or refutation.

UN envoy Lynn Pascoe insists on early release of IDPs

Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe who met Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse Friday to present the letter from UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon outlining the concerns of the international community on the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and other related matters, said that he had raised the issue of the early release of the IDPs and their freedom of movement with the President, sources in Colombo said. "It is frustrating to live in such conditions and therefore the people should be allowed to return to their original homes at the earliest. The security concerns of the government are understandable but at the same time the people must also be taken into serious consideration", Mr. Pascoe said.

Meanwhile, it is reported that the United Nations expressed concern Friday about the agreement reached in May between its General Secretary Ban Ki-moon and President Mahinda Rajapakse regarding the resettlement of the IDPs commenting that it did not see any anticipated progress through the agreement.
The visiting UN envoy further said that among the various issues that he discussed with the President the early release of the IDPs and their freedom inside the camp took precedence, the sources added.
The other matters of importance that Lynn Pascoe was concerned about were the well-being of the two Sri Lankan UN employees now under detention for alleged links with Liberation Tigers and Mr. James Elder, Communications Chief of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Funds (UNICEF), being expelled from Sri Lanka, according to the sources.

=

Lynn Pascoe visits IDP detention camps in Jaffna

Mr. Lynn Pascoe, United Nations Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, who was in Jaffna Thursday, visited the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) detention camps in Koapaay and Kaithadi, accompanied by Jaffna Sri Lanka Army (SLA) Commander, Major Gen. Mark and Jaffna Government Agent, K. Ganesh under heavy escort. Non-government organizations in Jaffna expressed concern that independent civil society representatives in the peninsula were not given an opportunity to meet the visiting UN envoy and inform him of the true situation in the peninsula.

Mr. Lynn Pascoe was also taken to Maravnpulavu and Thangki’lappu in Thenmaraadchi South where paddy lands occupied by the SLA for the past nine years had been allowed to be cultivated again.
The NGO organizations blamed the government for exploiting the UN envoy’s visit to show that all was well in Jaffna peninsula.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe who arrived in Sri Lanka Wednesday night proceeded to Vavuniyaa after his brief visit to Jaffna.

Video investigation by Colombo not impartial - Alston

Noting that two of the four experts cited by the government were full-time government employees, another had previously acted on behalf of the government, "and the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear," Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Thursday, that studies could not be characterized as impartial. "The only way to do this [authenticate the video] is for an independent and impartial investigation to take place,'' Alston said. The video clip, aired in British Channel-4 TV, allegedly showing Sri Lankan troops executing Tamil prisoners stripped naked and hands tied behind backs, has shocked the world community, and re-ignited calls for investigations of war-crimes against Sri Lanka military.

Alston's rebuke of Sri Lanka's 'independent' experts has effectively negated Colombo's hurried attempts to contain the damaging impact of the video, and thrust the burden back on Colombo to have the forensics carried out by "demonstrated experts who can be shown to be fully independent of the Government concerned." Compliance to "United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions," was also noted as necessary.

Alston also noted that no original reports were available from three 'experts,' and the fourth originated as an opinion piece on Island, before declaring that findings cannot be characterized as impartial.
Full text of Alston statement published in UNHCHR (United Nations High Commission on Human Rights) website follows:
Professor Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council today issued the following statement:
I have been requested by the Government of Sri Lanka to issue a public statement in response to the latest information provided by the Government in relation to the Channel 4 video which purports to show extrajudicial executions being carried out by the Sri Lankan Army. I have carefully reviewed the various briefings and statements made by the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights, which are essentially based upon a detailed "Consolidated Response" issued by the Government to the local and international media on 7 September 2009 and to the diplomatic community the following day. The Government's response was summarized in the Minister's statement on 15 September 2009 to the Human Rights Council in which he stated that "four separate investigations have now scientifically established beyond any doubt that this video is a fake."
I welcome the fact that the Government is now devoting considerable attention to this issue. The legal obligation incumbent upon a Government in a situation such as this is to undertake a "thorough, prompt and impartial investigation."* My role as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions is to evaluate whether the investigations undertaken have met the relevant criteria established under international law, and to advise the Human Rights Council accordingly.
I can attest to the fact that the investigation has been "prompt" since it was completed within two weeks of the information becoming available.
I am not, however, in a position to conclude that it was "thorough." I have not seen the original version of three of the four expert investigations. The fourth of the investigations seems to have originated as an Opinion piece in The Island newspaper, and was subsequently elaborated upon. It is not clear whether or not this was at the Government's request. The statement provided by the Minister summarizes "observations" made by the remaining three experts in presentations made at a meeting convened by the Government for this purpose. I would welcome the publication of the full text of the analyses undertaken and reports presented by each of the four experts.
The third and most important question is whether the "four separate investigations" meet the criteria of impartiality. I would note that two of the experts are members of the Sri Lankan Army, the body whose actions have been called into question. A third report is by Dr. Chathura De Silva, BSc Eng Hons (Moratuwa), MEng (NTU), PhD (NUS), Senior Lecturer, Dept of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Moratuwa, who has advised the Government in relation to a number of other similar issues in the past. And the fourth is by Siri Hewawitharana, a broadcast media specialist based in Australia, who is said to be the former head of Cisco's global broadcast and digital video practice. No other information has been provided by the government on Mr Hewawitharana, but it would appear that he is a member of a network of Sri Lankan Professionals. I would welcome more information on how he was identified and selected by the government as an independent expert.
Based on the limited information available to me, it is impossible to conclude that these four individuals, given their relationship to the Government, meet the criteria for impartiality in this context. When the actions of a Government are called into question in a matter of this gravity, what is required is to undertake an investigation by demonstrated experts who can be shown to be fully independent of the Government concerned. Two of these individuals are full-time Government employees, one has previously acted on behalf of the Government, and the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear. I must conclude therefore, on the basis of the information made available by the Government, that the investigations undertaken cannot be characterized as "impartial".
The final question that remains is whether the information provided by the Government raises significant doubts as to the authenticity of the video. On this question, my conclusion is that the views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic. The only way to do this is for an independent and impartial investigation to take place. This is all that I have called for. Such an investigation might well conclude that the position adopted by the Government is fully warranted. I would welcome that outcome very warmly, and I hope that the Government would do likewise.

Pascoe to deliver Ban Ki-Moon’s letter to Rajapakse Friday

Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe is to deliver the letter given by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to the Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapakse when meets the latter on Friday. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, told reporters in New York Thursday, he has sent a letter to President Mahinda Rajapakse outlining the concerns of the international community on the developments regarding internally displaced persons, the political process and a possible accountability mechanism.

“I have spoken directly with President Mahinda Rajapakse about these pressing matters last Monday. This week, I have sent the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, to Sri Lanka to follow-up. I have asked him to deliver my letter to the President outlining the concerns of the international community and immediately report back to me,” the UN Chief said.
The UN Secretary-General also said he was also deeply troubled by the continued detention without charge of the two United Nations staff members.

No time frame for resettlement of Vanni IDPs - Media Minister

The Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) Thursday said a time frame for the completion or partial completion of resettlement cannot be given despite the assurance given to the UN chief that 80 percent of the resettlement will be completed by the end of this year, according to Media Minister and cabinet spokesman, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa.

“The resettlement procedure takes a long time, therefore it’s unfeasible to set up a time frame. It depends on how the de-mining process takes place,” he added.

Earlier this year the government assured the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that 80 percent of the resettlement will be completed by the end of this year.
According to the Minister around 250,000 persons are living in camps in Vavuniya.

Backsliding on Human Rights

NEW YORK — The European leaders gathering at the United Nations for the General Assembly may feel a little smug. For eight years they struggled to persuade George W. Bush that multilateralism mattered. Now Barack Obama has embraced the U.N. enthusiastically.

The United States has finally agreed to pay off $2 billion in outstanding U.N. dues. Later this month, Obama will chair a session of the Security Council on nuclear proliferation — the first American president to do so.
But the last year has seen worrying trends at the U.N. for the U.S. and Europe. Support for their human rights positions continues to slide, poisoning diplomacy in New York and Geneva and even threatening to undermine the U.N.’s ability to deliver humanitarian aid.
Russia and China, having played power politics in the Security Council on issues like Kosovo and Darfur in the last years of the Bush administration, have not backed off.
This year they repeatedly blocked European efforts at the U.N. to put pressure on Sri Lanka to show restraint and allow full humanitarian access to the suffering during its bloody victory over the Tamil Tigers. The Human Rights Council passed a resolution endorsing Sri Lanka’s offensive. Up to 10,000 civilians died.
This tragedy was indicative of a wider erosion of support for Western positions on human rights. Of the U.N.’s 192 members, 117 voted with the European Union less than half the time on human rights issues in the General Assembly over the last year. This is almost twice the number of a decade ago.
This decline has been driven by politics, economics and religion. Developing countries still suspect Western human rights policies are ill-concealed efforts to interfere in their internal affairs. They resent the fact that the big economies are tackling the global recession through the G-20 and G-8 rather than the U.N. Islamic governments exploit U.N. resolutions to assert that religious values trump individual human rights.
Some fear that the United Nations could return to the dark days of the 1970s, when the Security Council was paralyzed by cold war tensions and the General Assembly was a pulpit for anti-Western ideologists. The situation is not that bad yet, but the United States and the European Union cannot ignore how debates over values are weakening them at the U.N.
European diplomats are wary of high-level divisions within the Obama administration between those who favor a firm line on human rights and others who prioritize engaging with China and Russia. But American diplomats have been working hard at reaching out to moderate African and Asian governments on human-rights votes. They grumble that the E.U., focused on internal coordination, does too little outreach.
This isn’t entirely fair. The European Commission is developing new ways to fund human-rights commitments that poorer countries make at the U.N. In the Security Council, France and Britain have blocked efforts to derail the International Criminal Court’s pursuit of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for war crimes in Darfur.
But the E.U. has suffered setbacks too. It split over whether to attend the U.N.’s Durban Review Conference on racism in April — Italy, Germany and the Netherlands joined the U.S. in boycotting the event on the grounds that it was anti-Israeli.
Given the chance to review China’s human rights record in the Human Rights Council, European countries took wildly differing positions. The British and Czechs said tough things about Tibet. But Hungary announced that “it took pride in being China’s partner in a common, bilateral human-rights dialogue.”
If the Europeans and the Americans want to stop the U.N. becoming a platform for their opponents, they need to improve their coordination. The current disputes over human rights will crystallize over the next two years, as 2011 will see an inter-governmental review of the Human Rights Council. China, Russia and other illiberal powers may try to set further limits on the U.N.’s human rights role.
The European Union, the United States and their remaining allies on human rights (such as the Latin American democracies) should form a high-level working group to prepare for the review. They should also talk directly to Moscow and Beijing about how to stop power politics in the Security Council from undercutting humanitarian aid, as it did over Sri Lanka. There is no point in celebrating America’s return to the U.N. if the U.N. cannot help the vulnerable.
Richard Gowan is a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Franziska Brantner is a German member of the European Parliament.

news

Colombo's paranoid secrecy

"Why must the military be in control of the camps, why not civilian agencies? Why can't visitors enter the camps? Why are journalists barred? Why are international agencies kept out? Why is it taking the courts so long to make a straightforward order to allow members of parliament to visit the camps?" and quoting Mangala Samaraweera, "I can walk into any prison at will and meet any criminal, but I am not allowed to meet these people held in detention for no reason," Prof Kumar David, in an opinion column in Sunday's Lakbima, writes, "[t]he reasons offered for this paranoid secrecy varied from the need to hide human rights violations to calculations relating to the upcoming elections. I think it will be some time before the real reason comes seeping out."

While Delhi pressures the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to put forward a Delhi-centric political proposal for the Tamils for continued engagement with Rajapakse, Prof. David exposes the futility of it all, as he predicts a gloomy political scenario, saying, "[a]stute folks are pretty well reconciled that nothing will happen in the foreseeable future about devolution, thirteen plus, minus or zilch, and home-grown solutions. It's going to be the same old unitary state and constitution, with or without some superficial tinkering."


Full text of Prof. David's article follows:
What Ranil, Mangala and Mano Ganesan said on 3 September at a Platform for Freedom Press Conference on the IDP issue was fairly widely covered in the print and electronic media, but three other contributors, Siritunga Jayasuriya, Nimalka Fernando and Herman Kumara failed to attract coverage. They were more sharp and interesting, but not being parliamentarians, I guess, less news worthy. I will focus on them to redress this imbalance. But first a Mangala snippet which was both catchy and accurate; he defined the Vannie interns as FDPs (Forcibly Detained Persons) insisting that calling them internally displaced persons (IDPs) was simply not true.
First, let me have my say. It is my view that it is the FDP issue that will have more severe repercussions on the relationship between the Tamils and the government and on Sinhala-Tamil relations than the hotly canvassed political package uproar. Astute folks are pretty well reconciled that nothing will happen in the foreseeable future about devolution, thirteen plus, minus or zilch, and home-grown solutions. It’s going to be the same old unitary state and constitution, with or without some superficial tinkering, until and unless something dramatic happens, such as the change to a left government; and that’s not on the cards.
But between two and three hundred thousand people of one community, held in indefinite and illegal detention by the hegemonic state of another community, well that’s tertiary stage cancer and its repercussions are going to be far, far more serious than people seem to realise. I give it three more months and if the FDPs are not all released from forcible detention, then the gulf will again widen to distrust similar to the post 1972-Constitution, post Vattukkotai Resolution, or intensifying LTTE periods. The gulf will become unbridgeable again. In a word, it’s the FDPs stupid, not the package that will hinge, or if you prefer unhinge, Tamil consciousness.

Siritunga’s take on it: For those who need some background, Siritunga is the leader of the United Socialist Party (USP), a non government left party and as presidential candidate in 2005 he polled 36,000 votes, certainly much more than I expected. I have been closely associated with him politically from 1970 when he was a key leader in the Vama or left tendency in the LSSP which matured into the NSSP in 1977. He parted company with us on the Indo-Lanka Accord and 13th Amendment which he opposed while we (the majority in the NSSP) gave these measures our conditional support. Nevertheless, he and I have remained personal friends. The USP has fraternal ties with international Marxist currents in many countries but I am not aware what its active membership within the country is.

As a Sinhalese Marxist he expressed shock at the inadequate response in the South to the fact that such a large number of Tamils could be held in illegal detention for over 100 days. “Imagine the uproar in the country if two to three lakhs of ordinary Sinhalese people had been held behind barbed wire like this”. How much longer is this going to continue he inquired? And this inquiry continued to the heart of the matter. “These people have lived under LTTE Administration for nearly two decades. Of course a large number of them or a family member would have worked in that Administration, many would have associated with the LTTE, and to be perfectly frank, most would have supported or been sympathetic to the LTTE point of view”. This goes to the heart of the government’s conundrum; if the government intends to hold everybody who is or was sympathetic to the LTTE indefinitely, then it will have to hold some hundreds of thousands of people forever. The real problem is not a few thousand ex-cadres, the problem is hundreds of thousands who, come on be sensible about it, must have been pro-LTTE.
I think it is inevitable that he comes to the same conclusion as I have done in my third paragraph, but from an inside the camps perspective. I asserted that the FDP issue is destined to be the crucible in which the fires of broad ethno-political conflict will light up again. Siritunga says “If you hold people like this you are operating a farm for breeding the next generation of LTTEers, by whatever name they sprout. Is the government trying to breed another one lakh of terrorists?”
Insensitivity and secrecy: Nimalka introduced a women’s and welfare perspective as one would expect from a person of her background. Initially though she made a comment that was news to me. Most of the food, dry rations and other essential needs of the FDPs are provided by UN agencies and NGOs she said.
It is not GoSL but these organisations that foot the bill; the work in the camp is done by NGO volunteers and GoSL’s expenses, other than paying for the military, are small. Nimalka’s main grouse however was framed in these questions. “Do mothers have the right to take a fevered child to hospital? Can a woman who is bleeding seek emergency medical help?” The questions are rhetorical, the answers obvious.
Why must the military be in control of the camps, why not civilian agencies? Herman Kumara of the Fishermen’s Welfare Association was quite pointed in his repetition of the question on many people’s mind. Why can’t visitors enter the camps? Why are journalists barred? Why are international agencies kept out? Why is it taking the courts so long to make a straightforward order to allow members of parliament to visit the camps? As Mangala added “I can walk into any prison at will and meet any criminal, but I am not allowed to meet these people held in detention for no reason.” The reasons offered for this paranoid secrecy varied from the need to hide human rights violations to calculations relating to the upcoming elections. I think it will be some time before the real reason comes seeping out.

'Business can’t escape responsibility'

Britain as a country bears a big responsibility to the plight of Tamils in the internment camps of Sri Lanka. Because it was one of the major powers that had repeatedly asked the Tamil civilians of Vanni to go to the side of the Colombo government, knowing very well what awaited them were barbed-wire camps. The British business cannot shun its responsibility of freeing them through economic measures. British Retail Consortium sympathising Colombo government and campaigning against EU sanctions amounts to only encouraging the method of concentration camp as an effective tool of structural genocide in the island, blame Tamil activists in UK.

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has expressed sentiments against the withdrawal of GSP Plus concession to Sri Lanka, citing that it would make businesses, especially the garment industry, to closedown and will affect hundred of thousands of workers.

“Whatever the human rights concerns, any response has to be balanced. Otherwise, if the preferential access deal is withdrawn by the Commission, business in Sri Lanka could close,” was the comment of BRC circles.
“Sri Lanka has many very good textile factories, but profit margins are small, and if they lose their current import arrangements, there are textiles manufacturers in Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand who will be ready to compete hard,” BRC circles said.
One supplier has gone to the extent of saying “I find the EU’s stance inconceivable considering that at the moment to my knowledge there is no certain proof of war crimes or crimes against humanity as mentioned. It’s easy to persecute a tiny Island like Sri Lanka whilst China and others like Burma are apparently invisible.”
Business circles in London said that some big British business houses like Marks & Spencer and Next produce garments in Sri Lanka. ';
news