Inclusive University Education: Is It The Most Pressing Issue In Sri Lanka’s University System?

By W.A. Wijewardena -April 2, 2013

Dr. W.A. Wijewardena

W.D Lakshman: Sri Lanka’s university education is not inclusive

Colombo University’s former Don and reputed educationist, Professor W.D Lakshman, in delivering the J.E Jayasuriya Memorial Oration 2013 in Colombo last month on inclusive university education and the state university in the country, has left his audience with four main conclusions. The first is that in terms of opportunities for university education, only a small proportion of students who qualify for admission to a university is admitted to the country’s state university system and therefore there is no inclusiveness in higher education. It is only a small number of people who get that opportunity exclusively. Second, even those who are admitted to a university do not get an opportunity to get a comprehensive education since they are taught in separate streams like arts, science, medicine, law, aesthetic studies etc. Hence, in terms of curricula too, there is no inclusiveness of university education.

The State funded universities are the best

Third, to fill the gap and make the country’s university education truly inclusive in terms of both admission and streams, it is the state university system that would serve the nation best. This is because, according to Lakshman, a private university system that depends on tuition fees paid by students is unlikely to serve the students from all the social classes of society. Fourth, even for the state universities, the much hyped business model which is currently in vogue is unsuitable since it would induce universities to select students on the basis of ability to pay rather than ability to contribute to knowledge. In essence, Lakshman’s message is that if society is interested in inclusive university education, it has to realise that objective by reforming the state university system appropriately.

Stirring up a hornet’s nest                        Read More

UN to vote on 1st treaty regulating global arms trade

The 

Associated Press 

Posted: Apr 2, 2013

There has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60-billion global arms trade. (Morteza Nikoubazl/Reuters)

The UN General Assembly is expected to vote Tuesday on what would be the first UN treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar international arms trade after Iran, North Korea and Syria blocked its adoption by consensus.

Assembly spokesman Nikola Jovanovic told The Associated Press on Monday that the resolution to adopt the treaty requires support from a majority of the 193 UN member states. Since the treaty had strong support when it was brought before UN members last Thursday, its approval is virtually certain — unless there are attempts to amend it before the vote.

Many countries, including the United States, control arms exports. But there has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60-billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

Hopes of reaching agreement at a UN negotiating conference were dashed in July when the U.S. said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord — a move quickly backed by Russia and China. In December, the UN General Assembly decided to hold a final negotiating conference to agree on a treaty and set last Thursday as the deadline.

After two weeks of intensive negotiations, there was growing optimism as the deadline approached that all 193 member states would approve the final draft treaty by consensus — a requirement set by the United States. This time, the U.S. was prepared to support the final draft treaty. ButIran, North Korea and Syria objected.

Iran complains of 'loopholes'

Iran said the treaty had many "loopholes," is "hugely susceptible to politicization and discrimination," and ignores the "legitimate demand" to prohibit the transfer of arms to those who commit aggression. Syria cited seven objections, including the treaty's failure to include an embargo on delivering weapons "to terrorist armed groups and to non-state actors." And North Korea said the treaty favours arms exporters who can restrict arms to importers that have a right to legitimate self-defence and the arms trade.

Both Iran and North Korea are under UN arms embargoes over their nuclear programs, while Syria is in the third year of a conflict that has escalated to civil war and is under U.S. and European Union sanctions. Amnesty International said all three countries "have abysmal human rights records — having even used arms against their own citizens."

The General Assembly had left open the possibility of a vote on the treaty if it failed to achieve consensus.

Jovanovic said the assembly will meet at 10 a.m. ET on Tuesday when the first order of business will be a report from the chair of the negotiations, Australian ambassador Peter Woolcott. That will be followed by the vote.

The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, would adopt the Arms Trade Treaty that was put to members last Thursday.

If approved, the resolution asks Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, as depositary of the treaty, to open it for signature by member states on June 3. It calls on all nations to consider signing and then ratifying the treaty "at the earliest possible date."

In a letter to the secretary-general dated Friday, Britain's UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant asked the UN chief to circulate the draft resolution to all UN members on behalf of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, the United States and the United Kingdom.

By the time the draft resolution was circulated Monday, treaty supporters had collected a total of 64 co-sponsors and they were trying to add more countries before Tuesday's vote.

Final draft makes human rights provision stronger

The draft treaty would not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

The final draft made the human rights provision even stronger, adding that the export of conventional arms should be prohibited if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime. The final draft would allow countries to determine whether the weapons transfer would contribute to or undermine peace and security.

The draft would also require parties to the treaty to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market.