Peace for the World World ! Your War Our Lives
The Dalai Lama
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Back to 500BC.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sri Lanka: Report exposes the government’s violent repression of dissent
APRIL
29, 2013
The Sri Lankan government is
intensifying its crackdown on critics through threats, harassment, imprisonment
and violent attacks, Amnesty International said in a report released
today.
The
document, Assault on
Dissent reveals how the government led by President Mahinda Rajapaksa
is promoting an official attitude that equates criticism with “treason” in a bid
to tighten its grip on power.
Journalists,
the judiciary, human rights activists and opposition politicians are among those
who have been targeted in a disturbing pattern of government-sanctioned abuse,
often involving the security forces or their proxies.
“Violent
repression of dissent and the consolidation of political power go hand in hand
in Sri Lanka,” said Polly Truscott, Amnesty International’s Deputy Asia Pacific
Director.
“Over
the past few years we have seen space for criticism decrease. There is a real
climate of fear in Sri Lanka, with those brave enough to speak out against the
government often having to suffer badly for it.”
Almost
immediately after the end of the armed conflict in May 2009, when the Tamil
Tigers (LTTE) were defeated, the government started consolidating its
power.
The
September 2010 introduction of the 18th constitutional amendment placed key
government institutions directly under the president’s control, while the
continued use of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) grants sweeping
powers to the security forces.
At
the same time, official government discourse has become increasingly hostile
towards critics, with terms like “traitor” used regularly by state-run media
outlets.
Government
critics have been subjected to verbal and physical harassment, attacks and in
some cases killings. The report details dozens of such cases, both before and
after 2009.
The
judiciary has been a key target of repression, with the government undermining
its independence by making threats against judges who rule in favour of victims
of human rights violations.
Tension
culminated in January 2013 when Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was
impeached on charges of misconduct, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the
impeachment procedure was unconstitutional.
While
much of Sri Lankan media is firmly in the hands of the government, the
authorities have targeted outlets that remain independent and criticize official
policies, or the government’s conduct during the armed conflict.
Journalists
continue to suffer intimidation, threats and attacks for reports that are
critical of the government. At least 15 have been killed since 2006 and many
others have been forced to flee the country.
In
a recent example, Faraz Shauketaly, a journalist with the Sunday Leader was left
badly injured after unknown gunmen shot him in the neck in February 2013.
Older
high-profile cases, such as the 2009 killing of former Sunday Leader editor
Lasantha Wickramatunge, remain unresolved.
Websites
with articles critical of the government face frequent cyber attacks, while
their offices have been raided by police or burned down by unknown arsonists.
The government has also used amendments to legislation – such as providing for
the imposition of exorbitant “registration” fees – to shut down critical online
outlets.
“The
government’s blatant attempts to restrict and silence the independent media fly
in the face of the press freedom, which is supposed to be guaranteed by both
domestic and international law,” said Truscott.
Much
of the government’s crackdown is aimed at silencing criticism of its conduct
during the armed conflict, in particular during its final months when many
thousands of civilians died at the hands of the LTTE and the army.
Pressure
on critics tends to intensify around key international events. Examples include
recent UN Human Rights Council (HRC) sessions in 2012 and 2013, when the HRC
passed resolutions highlighting the need to investigate alleged violations of
international law by the Sri Lankan government during the armed conflict.
Participants
in UN meetings and Sri Lankan journalists covering the events were repeatedly
verbally attacked in Sri Lankan government media outlets, and in some cases
physically threatened.
Others
who have been targeted by the government include human rights activists, trade
union leaders, humanitarian aid workers and opposition politicians, in
particular those active in the Tamil-majority north.
In
November 2013, the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) is set
to take place in Colombo. Sri Lanka would then represent the Commonwealth as its
Chair for the next two years.
“Before
November, Commonwealth governments must pressure the Sri Lankan government to
address the alarming human rights situation in the country,” said
Truscott.
“The
CHOGM meeting must not be allowed to go ahead in Colombo unless the government
has demonstrated beforehand that it has stopped systematic violations of human
rights. All attacks on individuals must be promptly, impartially and effectively
investigated and those responsible held to account.”
In
addition to these ongoing violations, the Sri Lankan government has failed –
despite repeated promises to do so – to effectively investigate allegations of
crimes under international law committed by the LTTE and the army during the
armed conflict.
“It
is abundantly clear that Colombo is unwilling and unable to investigate the
credible allegations of crimes under international law, including war crimes,
during the conflict. What is needed is an independent, impartial and
internationally led investigation,” said Truscott.
Sri Lanka: The intentions behind the land grabbing process
Introduction-
In the so-called ‘post-war’ Sri Lanka context, land grabbing, Sinhalization and military occupation of the Tamil nation have become pivotal points in the political development discourse. The deep concerns that exist amongst the majority of the Tamils, which are directed towards their present and future existence, are these same issues.
The political discourse within
the international community is unable to keep pace with the real-time
implementation and effects on the ground. The international community continues
to talk about reconciliation and the Sri Lankan state seems keener on Sinhala
settlements and militarization in the Tamil nation. All three actors have not
only different aspects but their own interests as well. For the Tamil people
living in the Northeast of the island, the apparent predominant concern is the
ability to retain a dignified life; now and into the future. Having said so,
this article analyses the real intention behind the land grabbing process being
accelerated by the Sri Lankan State, particularly since the end of Eelam War IV
in May 2009.
Interpretation
When
the brutal war on the island came to end in May 2009, over 146,679 Tamil people,
were still unaccounted. Crucial stakeholders of the ethno-political conflict of
Sri Lanka thought that it heralded an opportunity for reconciliation between the
polarized communities to build durable peace on the island.
In
contrast, the Sri Lankan regime began building military bases, Sinhala
settlements, Buddhist statues and stupas in the North East of the island. The
Government that brought in the disastrous Sinhala Only Act in 1956 seemed to
believe that the time for full level implementation and reactivation of the Act
had arrived after nearly a four-decade hiatus. Thereby deliberately targeting
the Northeast. Out of a total land mass of 65,619 sq km, the Tamils inhabited
18,880 sq km of land in the north and east, but after May 2009, the Sri Lankan
Armed Forces have come to occupy more than 7,000 sq km of Tamil land.1
Latest
data reveals that at least 6,069 acres of public and private lands are occupied
by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces (SLAF) for the purpose of opening up Sinhala
colonies in the Vanni region. It is worth noting that this excludes already
occupied lands in Jaffna region and the ‘Eastern province’.2 There
is an official process, which indicates that 6,400 acres of civilian land will
be seized for military purposes in Jaffna HSZ.3 People
also complain that Sinhala Buddhist archaeologists are engaged in nefarious
activities of Sinhalization. They are said to be visiting Tamil areas and
'excavating' Buddha statues that they themselves had planted earlier. The
purpose of this exercise is allegedly to claim that the territory in question
had been a Sinhala Buddhist area. The Sri Lankan regime has proclaimed that they
‘liberated’ the Tamil people through a so-called ‘humanitarian operation’. If
indeed that is the case, the question arises as to why they believe there is a
need to deploy the notorious military throughout the Northeast in such a large
scale and appoint war criminals as governors of the region? 85,000-86,000
soldiers are at present in the North and East.4
This
number does not include the separate deployment of a Task Force in the East, and
of the Navy and the Air Force. The Sri Lankan Army is comprised entirely of
Sinhalese, and the people of the North are almost entirely Tamil.5 The
military’s increasing control of administrative decisions in the North and East,
including distribution and use of land, has turned the issue of land ownership
into a deeply politicized and ethnically-charged one. Administrative and
developmental decisions in North-East Sri Lanka are frequently taken by the
military in consultation with the Presidential Task Force for Resettlement,
Development and Security (PTF) and the military is involved in various
committees set up as a result of the September 2011 government policy regarding
land in the North East. Furthermore, the military continues to impose
restrictions on humanitarian, developmental and psychiatric social work,
accentuating existing resentments and impeding quick recovery of the civilian
residents. The presence of large numbers of army personnel, particularly in the
north, has increased the vulnerability of women to violence and other forms of
abuse including rape.6
To
counter the increasing international pressure, the regime is building roads and
bridges under the banner of reconstruction and developments. Hon. Christine
Robichon, the French Ambassador to Sri Lanka said in an interview, “Healing the
wounds of the war is not limited to reconstructing roads and bridges.”7 The
reconstruction and development process has not focused on the basic human needs
such survival, well being, freedom and identity or interests of the Tamils.
Rather efforts and priority has been given to the interests of Sinhala
businessmen, settlers and the military. Tamil aspirations are being ignored,
grievances are being denied and the current expectations regarding
reconstruction and development in Tamil areas are not being heard. The State
instead continues with its long-term agenda with specific intentions.
Intentions
Soon
after the war came to an end, Sri Lanka's Buddhist nationalist party the Jathika
Hela Urumaya [JHU], which backs the Sri Lankan government, said: “each road in
the liberated areas in the North should be named for the war heroes who
sacrificed their lives for the nation's liberty”.8 The
genocidal war on the Tamil nation has been depicted as the Sri Lankan nation’s
liberation and perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity
have been extolled as war heroes.
The
mindset of the Sinhala chauvinists is that the entire island belongs only to
Sinhala Buddhists. This entrenched mentality encourages the destruction of any
identity that seems to be a counter or a threat to Sinhala Buddhist domination.
This mindset has emerged from a chauvinistic interpretation of the Mahavamsa,
which states that Buddhism needs to be preserved for a period of 5000 years in
the island until the next arrival/reincarnation of Buddha.9 This
idea has led to the Sinhala Buddhists believing they are of racial superiority
with the island belonging to them alone as they were the chosen ones.10 The
extreme form of this ideology has led to the belief that other communities in
the island are invaders or mere visitors with no entitlement to the same
privileges as the Sinhala Buddhist.
The
Jathika Chintanaya, a concept originated by Dr. Gunadasa Amaresekera in the
1980s, buttresses this Sinhala Buddhist majority mindset. Jathika Chintanaya
which transalates loosely to mean ‘National Thought/ National Conciousness’
seeks to create a common national polity, economy and culture irrespective of
religious and ethnic divides.11 It
seeks to promote Sinhala nationalism to reassert the dominance of the Sinhala
community and the protection of Sinhala rights, which it believes diminished
during colonial rule.12 The
Chintanaya promotes the fact that all communities in Sri Lanka belong to one
culture and hence refers to Sri Lanka as ‘one nation’. This alienates other
communities because it attempts to subsume their identity within the most
dominant Sinhala Buddhist identity.
This
mindset supported by the Jathika Chintanaya has led to the adoption of a cruel
attitude, which assists their acts of annihilation of the Tamil nation through
the process of genocide of the Tamil people. Twelve days [11 July 1983] before
the 1983 pogrom, which was considered the first mass level genocidal attempt
against the Tamil people, the Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayewardene said in an
interview to the UK based Daily Telegraph, “I am not worried about the opinion
of the Tamil people..… now we cannot think of them, not about their lives or
their opinion ... Really if I starve the Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be
happy”.
After
a quarter century, former Sri Lankan Army Commander and 2010 presidential
candidate Sarath Fonseka said; “I strongly believe that this country belongs to
the Sinhalese but there are minority communities and we treat them like our
people...We being the majority of the country, 75%, we will never give in and we
have the right to protect this country... They can live in this country with us.
But they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue
things.”13
The
statements of the Sinhala leaders clearly articulate their intention to
eliminate the Tamil people from the island. This deliberate process has been
executed through either mass level slaughters or the eradication of the ethnic
and cultural identity of the Tamil people. The forcing of the Tamil people to
assimilate into Sinhala identity is also part of this agenda. The statements and
actions across Sinhalese party lines validate the view that a change in leaders
or regime will not be a change in policy of the Sri Lankan state, the prime
architect of genocide of the Tamil people.
Strong
evidence of this notion can be ascertained from statements made as early as the
first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, D.S.Senanayake in his address to colonists in
Padaviya (an area linking the Northern and Eastern provinces): “Today you are
brought here and given a plot of land. You have been uprooted from your village.
You are like a piece of driftwood in the ocean; but remember that one day the
whole country will look up to you. The final battle for the Sinhala people will
be fought on the plains of Padaviya. You are men and women who will carry this
island’s destiny on your shoulders. Those who are attempting to divide this
country will have to reckon with you. The country may forget you for a few
years, but one day very soon they will look up to you as the last bastion of the
Sinhala.”14
Fundamentally,
the Sinhala chauvinist belief is that the entire island belongs to Sinhala
Buddhists only and the Tamil existence in the island is to be considered a major
threat against them. Therefore, following the Mu'l'livaaykkaal mass atrocities,
the present post-war period is deemed to be the ideal stage to grab the Tamil
lands through militarization and Sinhalization. The next step will inevitably be
an attempt to erase the Tamil ethnic and cultural identity completely. This
development will lead to the annihilation of the Tamil nation from the island.
Hence, it can be concluded that ethnic cleansing and Sinhalization is thus a
vital component of the genocidal agenda of the Sinhala state.
©
JDS
Nirmanusan
Balasundaram is an exiled journalist and a human rights defender. He
holds an MA in Peace and Conflict Studies from the European University Center
for Peace Studies in Austria.
Notes:
6.
Chatham House, Asia Programme Paper ASP PP 2011/05, Sri Lanka: Prospects for
Reform and Reconciliation, Charu Lata Hogg, October 2011.
9.
See L. Marasinghe, The British colonial contribution to disunity in Sri Lanka, 6
Sri Lanka J. Int'l L. 81 (1994); also see J.L. Devananda, The Mahavamsa mindset:
Re-Visiting political Buddhism in Sri Lanka, http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1886
10.
See Charles R.A. Hoole, A Reassessment of Sinhalese Utopia: Explorative Essay on
the Sri Lankan Political Crisis, 33 J. Church & St. 95 (1991)
11.
Kanishka Goonewardena, ‘National ideology’ in a Buddhist state, October 2007,http://himalmag.com/component/content/article/1333-‘National-ideology’-in-a-Buddhist-state.html
12. ibd.
13. Interview with Stewart Bell of the National Post newspaper of
Canada, 23 September 2008
14.
The excerpt quoted by M.H. Gunaratna was related to him by Davinda Senanayake,
D.S’s grandson. (p.201 of ‘For a Sovereign State’, by
M.H.Guna¬ratna).
Government Considering Amending The Thirteenth Amendment Before NP Elections
April 30, 2013 |
Caught between its promises to India and
the international community to hold elections to theNorthern
Provincial Council in September 2013 on the one hand and certain
defeat at the hands of the Tamil Nationalist Alliance on the other, the
Rajapaksa Government is now mulling an amendment to the Constitution to take
away some of the powers of Provincial Councils, theColombo
Telegraph understands. According to Government sources, the proposed
amendment will make far reaching changes to the Thirteenth
Amendment.
Rajapaksa
Under
the Thirteenth
Amendment, if a Bill on a subject devolved on Provincial Councils is
to be passed by Parliament, the Bill has to be referred to all Provincial
Councils for their views. If all Provincial Councils agree, then the Bill can be
passed by a simple majority. However, if one or more Provincial Councils do not
agree, then the Bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority if it is to apply
to the provinces which did not agree. If passed only by a simple majority, the
Bill will be law only in the provinces that have agreed.
It
may be recalled that several Bills of the Rajapaksa Government on provincial
subjects were rejected by Provincial Councils including Councils controlled by
the UPFA. The Government is worried that with a TNA-controlled Provincial
Council in place, other Councils, especially the Eastern Provincial Council,
would follow the Northern Provincial Council and not agree to government Bills.
As such, the new amendment would provide that a Bill on a provincial subject
will become law applicable to the whole country, if a majority of Provincial
Councils agree to the passing of the Bill. The Government is confident that
Provincial Councils other than the Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils can
be pressurized into supporting any Bill.
Another
amendment being considered relates to Police powers. Although Police powers have
been devolved to a certain extent by the Thirteenth Amendment, Provincial
Councils are unable to exercise those powers as the Police Commission Act, No. 1
of 1990 which provides for the establishment of a National Police Commission and
a Provincial Police Commission for each province has still not been brought into
operation by successive Governments. Police powers will be completely taken back
to the central government or limited to minor offences, Government sources told
Colombo Telegraph.
At
present, Provincial Councils have certain powers over State land. Under
paragraph 1:3 of Appendix II of the Thirteenth Amendment, alienation or
disposition of State land within a Province to any citizen or to any
organisation shall be by the President but only on the advice of the relevant
Provincial Council. It may be recalled that in the case filed against the former
President, Chandrika
Kumaratunga, for transferring state land to Water’s Edge Golf
Company, one of the grounds on which the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief
Justice Sarath
Silva held that the transfer was illegal was that the advice of the
Western Provincial Council had not been given. The Government is now considering
deleting the requirement of advice and also taking back many other land powers
devolved.
However,
the Rajapaksa government
is worried that the required two-thirds majority will not be forthcoming in the
new political climate. The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress is already under severe
pressure from the Muslim community to withdraw from the Government because of
the Government’s reluctance to deal with extremists who are fuelling anti-Muslim
hatred. Muslims also believe that the newly formed extremist
Buddhist organizations have the covert support of the Government.
Further, the SLMC would find it extremely difficult to agree to a dilution of
the powers of Provincial Councils. The Government may also find it difficult to
get the Left parties to support such an amendment. At the vote on the
impeachment of Chief
Justice Bandaranayake, the Secretary General of the SLMC and three
MPs of the Left parties, all Cabinet Ministers, did not vote with the
Government.
However,
the Government is exploring the possibility of getting a few more UNP MPs to
join the Government “to strengthen the hands of the President”, Government
sources stated.
Colombo
Telegraph -
SRI LANKA: The absence of political will to eliminate thuggery
April 30, 2013
For
a law enforcement agency the elimination of thuggery is one of the simplest
things to do. For thugs are cowards and they crawl and beg for mercy whenever
they find that there is a strong enough will on the part of the law enforcement
agencies and the courts to deal with crime. Anybody who has been to a High Court
where serious crimes are tried will have plenty of stories to tell as to how
so-called 'strong men' who have been involved in crimes begs for mercy. Many of
them pay huge sums to their lawyers to ensure that they would be kept out of
jail.
If
thuggery has gone to the extent of being a scourge or a serious social problem
it only means that the thugs have lost their fear of the law. It means that
thugs have got the upper hand in the struggle over those who represent the
law.
The
strength of the thugs does not lie in their muscles, it lies in their
connections. The connections matter only when the law enforcers are afraid of
those connections. In times when the spirit of defiance and boldness is strong
in the law enforcers and when they dare to do their duty without "caring a damn"
as they say for anyone who opposes them, no amount of connections can help the
thugs.
Thus,
the problem of thuggery is essentially a political problem. Where thuggery is
widespread it means that the government in power has shackled the law enforcers.
The government has taken the side of the thugs and communicated a very strong
message to the law enforcement agencies that they if they try to go against
thuggery they do so at their peril.
That
is, in fact, what has happened in Sri Lanka since 1978 in particular, and by now
it has increased in epidemic proportions. When President J.R. Jayewardene
immediately after his electoral victory gave a few weeks of 'holiday' to the
police, he passed a very strong message to the law enforcement agencies and to
the society at large. That simple message was that from that point on the
government will resort to lawlessness when it suits its purposes. That simple
message is now a political doctrine that is followed by every government that
comes into power. Later the same president used one of his ministers, Cyril
Matthew, to take the employees of the state transport services to the opposition
meetings to attack them. Similarly during the general strike of 1980 the
government used thugs to attack the workers. That tale is a very long one and
there are graphic records of this patronage of thugs by the government in power
over many decades.
It
is this same legacy that the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime follows and the influence
of thugs has been magnified a thousand-fold. Today it is hard to distinguish an
act of the government, which is done lawfully through lawful agencies, and one
that is done with the support of the criminal elements.
The
problems of the law enforcement agencies are two-fold. If they act independently
they get into trouble. There have been reports of death threats even to senior
police officers who were involved in investigations into some crimes. And there
have been instances when some of them have been killed. On the other hand the
law enforcement agencies themselves are so much linked to criminal elements that
it is the complainants of the crimes that really get into trouble. Recently, a
casino den that enjoyed state patronage was raided by an SSP who is now
receiving death threats. In a separate incident it was reported that a DIG
warned his officers not to discharge their duties without his express
permission. The article stated him as saying, "I am like a snake, even Gota is
under my thumb". The DIG, Anura Senanayake, who is in charge of the Colombo
police division sent his warning to all police stations in Colombo.
One
could go to the extent of saying that thuggery in Sri Lanka is constitutionally
protected. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution amply illustrates
the constitutional protection enjoyed by those who take to thuggery. Even the
limited attempt taken up through 17th Amendment to the Constitution
was removed thus empowering the criminal elements that can now go about their
business without fear of a law enforcement agency that may be pursuing them.
What the 17th Amendment attempted to do to was overcome the
overwhelming problem created by the 1978 Constitution which disabled all the
public institutions from performing their duties within the framework of the
law. However, the 18th Amendment reinforced the position under the
1978 Constitution and opened the floodgates for the entering of thugs into all
areas of life with state patronage.
The
central problem in Sri Lanka regarding thuggery is the state patronage extended
to thuggery. That is the very reversal of a rational government. The most basic
and primary duty undertaken by a rational government is to protect the people
from all types of criminal activities. That is exactly what has been abandoned
in Sri Lanka. When President Jayewardene made his famous comment that, each
person should look after his own protection, it was a declaration of the
abandonment of the most basic and primary duty of the government to uphold the
law and hold itself responsible for the protection of the people. It is the same
policy that is continuing now.
Even
the more honest intellectuals in Sri Lanka do not want to face the magnitude of
the crisis of the rule of law in their country. They complain about this or that
aspect which comes to the surface but are unwilling to face the most obvious
crisis that entangles them in almost everything they try to do. They often boast
of their pessimism. However, they do not look into the root causes that give
rise to such pessimism.
As
long as the absence of the political will to deal with thuggery remains
unchallenged thugs will reign despite of the songs being sung about people being
the kings and the queens. The Duminda Silva episode exemplifies the royal place
that is given to thugs in Sri Lanka.
BBS US Pictures: Sumptuous Feasts For BBS Monks
April 30, 2013
The picture below shows the Bodu
Bala Sena Secretary General, a Buddhist monk Galagodaththe
GnanasaraThero having a meal while he was in the US two weeks
ago.
“Sumptuous
feasts for BBS while bread and dhal for faithful” an ordinary citizen told
Colombo Telegraph.
Sri Lanka 'intensifies crackdown on dissent' - Amnesty
30 April 2013 Amnesty International has accused Sri Lanka of intensifying a crackdown on dissent and urged the Commonwealth not to hold its summit there unless the human rights situation improves.
The
final phase of the war, in 2009, left many thousands of people dead
It
says the government is responsible for harassing and imprisoning critics.
Sri
Lanka has rejected the allegations, saying that a rehabilitation process is
under way after years of conflict.
Last
week Commonwealth foreign ministers agreed to hold the summit in Colombo despite
objections by Canada.
The
next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) is set to take place in
Colombo in November and Sri Lanka would then represent the Commonwealth as its
chair for the next two years.
Canada's
Foreign Minister John Baird has said he was "appalled" that Sri Lanka had been
chosen to host the meeting, arguing it had failed in the fundamental
Commonwealth values of "freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and
good governance".
Dismissing
Canada's objections, Sri Lanka's cabinet spokesman and information minister
Keheliya Rambukwella told the BBC: "We have dealt with this human rights issue
and we feel they are very biased and very unfair."
But
Amnesty International's report, released on Tuesday, echoed some of the
criticisms.
It
says that journalists, lawyers, human rights activists and opposition
politicians are among those who have been targeted in what the report calls
"government-sanctioned abuse".
"Violent
repression of dissent and the consolidation of political power go hand in hand
in Sri Lanka," Polly Truscott, Amnesty International's deputy Asia Pacific
director, said in the report.
"Over
the past few years we have seen space for criticism decrease. There is a real
climate of fear in Sri Lanka, with those brave enough to speak out against the
government often having to suffer badly for it."
It
said that human rights violations must end before Colombo is allowed to go ahead
with hosting the meeting.
The
Sri Lankan High Commission in London rejected the group's allegations, saying
that a rehabilitation process is under way after years of conflict.
Sri
Lanka's army defeated Tamil rebels after a brutal 26-year war in 2009. The
entire conflict left at least 100,000 people dead.
Both
sides were accused of human rights abuses throughout the conflict, with much
focus on what happened in its final stages, when thousands of civilians were
trapped in a thin strip of land in the north of Sri Lanka as fighting raged
around them.
Estimates
of civilian deaths in the final months range widely from 9,000 to 75,000.
Last
month the UN's Human Rights Council passed a resolution highly critical of Sri
Lanka's record.
The
resolution encouraged Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible
investigation into alleged war crimes.
Amnesty Wants Commonwealth Meeting Moved From Sri Lanka
By Joanna Sugden
- Ron D’Raine/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
- Sri Lankan President Mahendra Rajapaksa at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Perth, Oct. 30, 2011.
Amnesty International has joined the
calls for Commonwealth nations to relocate a major meeting from Sri Lanka, days
after the Indian secretary general of the Commonwealth indicated that such a
move would be rejected.
In
a report titled “Assault
on Dissent,” Amnesty International said the Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting in November should be moved from Colombo in protest over the country’s
human rights record. Human Rights Watch made
a similar request in February.
A U.N.
panel in 2011 found that 40,000 people, mainly Tamil civilians, died in the
final stages of the 27-year civil war in Sri Lanka. A U.S.-sponsored resolution
has called on Colombo to investigate crimes allegedly committed by government
forces against the minority Tamil community.
In
its report published Tuesday, Amnesty International said the Sri Lankan
government was “intensifying their efforts to eradicate dissent, striking out
against prominent national institutions, including the judiciary, and public
figures who express opposition to government policies and practices.”
Polly
Truscott, Amnesty’s deputy Asia Pacific director, said that all attacks on
individuals in Sri Lanka must be investigated promptly and impartially if the
country is to host the meeting. Those responsible for the attacks should be held
to account, she said.
Canada
publically denounced the decision to hold the meeting in Sri Lanka, but the
country has stopped short of a boycott, according to a BBC
report.
John
Baird, Canada’s foreign secretary, said Saturday his country “finds it appalling
that the government in Colombo would be given the honor and the privilege and
responsibility of hosting Commonwealth leaders.”
“The
Commonwealth has fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights, the
rule of law, good governance and the government in Colombo has failed in all of
those respects,” he told the BBC.
No
other Commonwealth member states, which include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Sri Lanka, have expressed concern about holding the meeting in Sri Lanka.
Friday,
the secretary general of the Commonwealth, Kamalesh Sharma, said the
organization had been “engaging across a wide front with Sri Lanka.”
“I
am sure it will yield very good results in all the areas of human rights, of
rule of law, of governance, and institution building and strengthening,” Mr.
Sharma told a press conference following a
meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which deals with
serious and persistent violations of Commonwealth values.
Mr.
Sharma said he was “fully persuaded” that all member states were sincere in
subscribing to Commonwealth values.
The CHOGM convenes
every two years to discuss global issues including human rights, multilateral
trade, democracy and peace. The host nation then serves as chair of the group
of nations for two years.
Australian Labor MP Calls For Sri Lanka CHOGM Boycott
April 30, 2013
A
federal Labor backbencher has broken ranks and called for Australia to boycott
the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Sri Lanka later this
year.
John
Murphy
Canada’s government has already threatened to
boycott the November meeting in protest against alleged human rights
violations.
Sri
Lanka has been accused of sanctioning the torture of Tamil civilians and abuse
of the media, judges and opposition politicians.
Foreign
Affairs Minister Bob Carr has said Canada’s boycott would be counter-productive
and it would be better to stay engaged with Sri Lanka to directly raise
concerns.
But
backbencher John Murphy says he thinks it is too late for that.
“All
the empirical and other evidence today indicates an arrogant reluctance by the
Sri Lankan government to deal properly with these very, very serious allegations
and so I’ve reached the conclusion that the best step would be for our country
to boycott CHOGM,” he said.
“The
Sri Lankan government is not listening to the international community in
relation to conducting an independent and credible investigation into the
allegations and violations of international human rights.
“I
think the time has come to send a powerful message to the Government that
international leaders should boycott CHOGM.”
Former
prime minister Malcolm Fraser has also backed the need for a boycott.
The
Federal Opposition supports the Government’s position, with border protection
spokesman Michael Keenan saying it is important to continue to engage with Sri
Lanka.
Courtesy Australian Broadcasting Corporation
EU decision on SL
fishing sanctions in June
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)