• This web proxy is sponsored by HideMyAss.com

The shuttle between Delhi – Colombo; what’s up ?

There is high speculation now in Delhi and Colombo as to where the two regimes, Rajapaksas and Sinhg-Sonia Gandhi, are heading on bilateral dialogue. An extremely high powered 03 member team that included President Rajapaksa’s brother Minister Basil Rajapaksa and Presidential Secretary Weeratunge visited Delhi last week to discuss matters of mutual interest. The other brother, the single minded Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa went over to Delhi, obviously to talk defense and security.

Right now, one of the most powerful positions in the Delhi administration, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao has landed in Colombo on a 04 day visit. Reasons given are assessing Indian aid for rehab and resettlement in North – East parts of SL. There is also news about Indian Defense Secretary Pradeep Kumar visiting Sri Lanka in the near future.

Meanwhile on 26 August, The Hindu reported, [quote] India has completed the hydrological survey of the Kankesanthurai port and will be sending a team to finalise the detailed project report. It is also finalising the tender documents for the modernisation of the Palaly airport.[unquote]

These details and information had provoked an e-mail received by SAS and was later followed up by another that had a few responses too. SAS thought it would be worth sharing them with its readers.

The chain is given below.

Editorial

Thinking Aloud

Any link between Nirupama Rao’s visit to Colombo, Indian security talks (Gota was in Delhi too) and Rajapaksa’s quick move to extend his own terms in presidency from 2 to 3 years ? In short, has India given into Rajapaksa for its own regional interests ?

Would appreciate personal thoughts

Thnx

Kusal

How others think aloud

[In order of reciept]

(01)

Worth thinking this through. But madame Rao I think has just landed in SL and she is ostensibly there to assess how good the rehab and resettlement measures in the north and east are — and to audit how well Indian aid has been used. So in between, if there is any deal struck with MR and his dynasty, we will count on …. info.
Regards,
SM


Chain with SM

Is it just assessing rehab and resettlement in N-E ? Does that need the Sec to MEA to come personally ? What is the Indian HC doing here in Colombo then ?

Hmmmm….!!!

Kusal

So MR is going to ram through that constitutional amendment, you think? And is madame Rao coming over to bestow her blessings? But what happens if term limits are moved by constitutional amendment and CBK decides to contest? Does MR have that contingency

SM

Hi,

Well, CBK is a non entity in SL politics. As for India, there is no option any more in the opposition to chose from. So perhaps they will work on MR. As for MR, he is firmly saddled on power. No chance of stopping him right now. The only possibility is a major rift in the SLFP leadership. But that again needs a strong opposition with social backing, which is totally absent. That is why MR is hurrying. He knows quite well, that politics in society is not stagnant and the equation could change with time.

Kusal

(02)

They have done it long ago. By the way what is India’s regional interest?
M.G.D

Response to M.G.D

Well, my reading is, Delhi is working on establishing a SL regime that is economically dependent on India and with MR reluctant to devolve power in any form, he would need Delhi to assist him in diluting Tamil politics. There in lies the compromise.

Kusal

(03)

Machan,
India is pushing a regional security co-operation program and they are going to have a dialogue with Sri Lankan authorities very soon. This is, as I was informed, not just a reaction to Chinese interests in Sri Lanka. Yet a part of a India’s national strategic plan which aims at reducing Chinese and Pakistani influence over important strategic issues. India is confident of achieving super power status by 2020. Thus this may aim at controlling the regional discourse in favour of India’s national interests.
With regard to Rajapakse’s I have no enough information even to make an assumption. Yet I know India had good hope on Ranil probably now they have given up. Hence, to accept the reality and fulfil their objectives, your proposition may have a point.
Rgds
Dinesh

(04)

Dear Kushal,

You made the right catch! Yes. Nirupama met TN chief Karunanidhi and had discussion for 55 minutes. Few days later, Karunanidhi in a press meet at Chennai announced that Sethusamudra Shipping Project is kept in “Abeyance”. The fact is the project awaiting a clearance from the Supreme Court of India. But Karunanidhi said it has to be kept in abeyance due to opposition from “Shastras and Beliefs”. The case of strong for SSP, but he gave up. Lanka’s regional interest served. Now Basil in Delhi and clearing way for defence cooperation agreement. It may happen by the year end. It is all done (from the Indian perspective that) keeping China out of Lanka? Will that happen?

Regards,

K. Ayyanathan

Growth & Happiness in a Buddhist Economy

Ceremony that crowned the youngest King in Bhutan in 2006

by Jeffrey D. Sachs

I have just returned from Bhutan, the Himalayan kingdom of unmatched natural beauty, cultural richness, and inspiring self-reflection. From the kingdom’s uniqueness now arises a set of economic and social questions that are of pressing interest for the entire world.

Bhutan’s rugged geography fostered the rise of a hardy population of farmers and herdsmen, and helped to foster a strong Buddhist culture, closely connected in history with Tibet. The population is sparse – roughly 700,000 people on territory the size of France – with agricultural communities nestled in deep valleys and a few herdsmen in the high mountains. Each valley is guarded by a dzong (fortress), which includes monasteries and temples, all dating back centuries and exhibiting a masterful combination of sophisticated architecture and fine arts.

Bhutan’s economy of agriculture and monastic life remained self-sufficient, poor, and isolated until recent decades, when a series of remarkable monarchs began to guide the country toward technological modernization (roads, power, modern health care, and education), international trade (notably with neighboring India), and political democracy.  What is incredible is the thoughtfulness with which Bhutan is approaching this process of change, and how Buddhist thinking guides that thoughtfulness. Bhutan is asking itself the question that everyone must ask: how can economic modernization be combined with cultural robustness and social well-being?

Bhutan's future happiness in growthIn Bhutan, the economic challenge is not growth in gross national product, but in gross national happiness (GNH). I went to Bhutan to understand better how GNH is being applied. There is no formula, but, befitting the seriousness of the challenge and Bhutan’s deep tradition of Buddhist reflection, there is an active and important process of national deliberation. Therein lies the inspiration for all of us.

Part of Bhutan’s GNH revolves, of course, around meeting basic needs – improved health care, reduced maternal and child mortality, greater educational attainment, and better infrastructure, especially electricity, water, and sanitation. This focus on material improvement aimed at meeting basic needs makes sense for a country at Bhutan’s relatively low income level.

Yet GNH goes well beyond broad-based, pro-poor growth. Bhutan is also asking how economic growth can be combined with environmental sustainability – a question that it has answered in part through a massive effort to protect the country’s vast forest cover and its unique biodiversity. It is asking how it can preserve its traditional equality and foster its unique cultural heritage. And it is asking how individuals can maintain their psychological stability in an era of rapid change, marked by urbanization and an onslaught of global communication in a society that had no televisions until a decade ago.

I came to Bhutan after hearing an inspiring speech by Prime Minister Jigme Thinley at the 2010 Delhi Summit on Sustainable Development. Thinley had made two compelling points. The first concerned the environmental devastation that he could observe – including the retreat of glaciers and the loss of land cover – as he flew from Bhutan to India. The second was about the individual and the meaning of happiness. Thinley put it simply: We are each finite and fragile physical beings. How much “stuff” – fast foods, TV commercials, large cars, new gadgets, and latest fashions – can we stuff into ourselves without deranging our own psychological well-being?

For the world’s poorest countries, such questions are not the most pressing. Their biggest and most compelling challenge is to meet citizens’ basic needs. But, for more and more countries, Thinley’s reflection on the ultimate sources of well-being is not only timely, but urgent.

Everybody knows how American-style hyper-consumerism can destabilize social relations and lead to aggressiveness, loneliness, greed, and over-work to the point of exhaustion. What is perhaps less recognized is how those trends have accelerated in the United States itself in recent decades. This may be the result of, among other things, the increasing and now relentless onslaught of advertising and public relations. The question of how to guide an economy to produce sustainable happiness – combining material well-being with human health, environmental conservation, and psychological and cultural resiliency – is one that needs addressing everywhere.

Bhutan has many things going its way. It will be able to increase exports of clean, run-of-the-river hydropower to India, thereby earning foreign exchange in a manner that is sustainable and that can fill government coffers to fund education, health care, and infrastructure. The country is also intent on ensuring that the benefits of growth reach all of the population, regardless of region or income level.

There are serious risks. Global climate change threatens Bhutan’s ecology and economy. Incautious and expensive advice from McKinsey and other private consulting firms could help turn Bhutan into a degraded tourist zone. One must hope that the quest for GNH will help steer the country away from such temptations.

The key for Bhutan is to regard GNH as an enduring quest, rather than as a simple checklist. Bhutan’s Buddhist tradition understands happiness not as attachment to goods and services, but as the result of the serious work of inner reflection and compassion toward others.

Bhutan has embarked on such a serious journey. The rest of the world’s economies should do the same.

www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs169/English

Project Syndicate

New York

August 25, 2010

Buddhism” in Bhutan is very different in fundamental theoretical expositions from Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand. Buddhism in Bhutan is very much influenced by the Mahayana Sect, practised in Tibet and has assimilated some North Indian Hindu precepts and rituals too. Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand is based on the opposite Sect commonly known as Theravada, which in theory is called “Heenayana”, a very individualistic approach to self emancipation. – Editor

Jeffrey D. Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also Special Adviser to United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals. [www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/1804]

Politics of Pakistani Floods

The floods which have devastated huge areas of Pakistan may be an act of nature, but the worsening humanitarian crisis that followed is a direct result of the failures of Pakistan’s venal leaders–and the impact of the U.S. “war on terror.”

According to official estimates, more than 20 million people have been displaced and another 1,600 are dead as a result of one of the worst floods in Pakistani history. In some places, the rains have made the Indus River 15 miles wide, some 25 times broader than normal.

The flooding started when the monsoon rains tore through the mountains in the northwest part of the country (called Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa). As the waters raged through the Sindh and Punjab provinces, they destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes and over 1.7 million acres of farmland. Several large cities were also been submerged, like Naushera, Muzaffarabad and Abottabad. The people who have made it out of the flood-ravaged areas are crammed in makeshift shelters or in overcrowded government buildings.

Those who escaped the floods find themselves without access to food, clean drinking water, sanitation and medicine. All of this has exacerbated the crisis, as many more are likely to die as the result of diarrhea, cholera and other diseases.

Getting aid to many of the areas affected by the flooding has also been difficult, as the floods wiped out much of the infrastructure that relief agencies need: power stations have been flooded, gas lines have been ripped out, and grain storage areas have been made irrelevant.

Particularly disheartening is the fact that many of the people who now find themselves homeless are the very same who were forced out of their homes last year during the Pakistani military campaign in Swat against the Taliban and its allies in the region. Every single bridge in Swat has been wiped out, and many of the houses that were rebuilt after American drones bombed the area have again been destroyed. Moreover, Pakistan still hasn’t fully recovered from the effects of a particularly deadly earthquake in 2005.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Two interconnected factors have made the flooding itself worse. First, the number of incidents of extreme weather in Pakistan has increased in the past several years, a fact that many scientists attribute to the effects of global climate change. Many commentators have linked the devastation in Pakistan to the landslides in China and flooding in Bangladesh, as part of a vast change in regular weather patterns in the region.

Second, the massive dam and canal network that threads through Pakistan was built in the interests of large landowners and big capitalists rather than the people. This has meant that infrastructure repair and emergency relief have been extremely lopsided, and organized around preserving the interests of the landed elite rather than around flood prevention.

Monsoon rains, after all, happen every year, and there have been more than a dozen major floods in Pakistan since the 1970s. Still, flood control still remains inadequate.

Since the British occupation of India in the 19th century, the rulers of Punjab and Sindh tried to transform an arid landscape into a rich agricultural area by building a network of canals and elaborate irrigation arteries throughout the region. In Punjab and Sindh, it wasn’t the rain that caused the flooding, but rather the fact that there are no large flood control mechanisms built into the irrigation network.

The system has barrages (large dams), but is also dotted with low dams, whose primary function is to divert normal water flows into canals. Yet instead of preparing for the contingency of a flood, the government of Pakistan has been putting up dykes to prop up this bad infrastructure. As a result, floodwaters have been pushed into regions that are ill-equipped to deal with such problems.

As Mushtaq Gadi, professor at Qaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad put it:

When the World Bank started its rehabilitation project of Taunsa Barrage three years ago, it was meant basically to rehabilitate and repair the whole barrage. And $140 million were allocated. We asked them to pay attention to ecological issues, and especially the issue of this tilt, the position, sedimentation of the barrage, and how the whole ecology of the barrage is going to change, because its channel has been raised up, and now all the low-lying areas are more in the danger of floods.

All that has been ignored. Just six months after the rehabilitation project, the barrage failed to hold up the water, and it was breached. So it was, in fact, the failure of Taunsa Barrage that caused such large destruction…

These are not only natural floods, but the structures that were created were injurious and badly looked after by the irrigation department–they caused such destruction and worsened the situation.

To make matters worse, naked self-interest has dominated the allocation of resources and the decisions about where and how to act. In one instance in Kot Mittin in southern Punjab, the government built a wall to save a prosperous neighborhood. But in its attempts to save the Tonsa barrage, it managed to submerge the poor neighborhood next to it. Some 100,000 people lost their homes in the process.

Even more damning has been the activity of landlords in Sindh who have been cutting slits into the banks of the canals in order to save their own lands. In the process of securing the Guddu Barrage in Sindh, the landlords managed to drown the people of Jacobabad. And there are reports of politicians, like Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, diverting relief aid from the most needy sections of Pakistan to their own home districts.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

This will have a series of social and political consequences in Pakistan. First, it has raised serious challenges about the ability of the Pakistani state to provide for its own people. Aside from the fact the nation depends on a huge injection of international aid to remain economically afloat, much of the international aid that the country does receive goes into the coffers of the military.

To add insult to injury, Pakistani politicians, including President Asif Ali Zardari, were nowhere to be found for several days while millions of Pakistanis suffered. As a sign of the growing rage that people feel, Hina Rabbani Kher, a junior minister from the Pakistan People’s Party, was pelted with stones by protesters after being absent for a week after the flooding began from her constituency in Punjab.

As Fatima Bhutto, the niece of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, argued:

The entire upper echelon of the Pakistani state has traveled to Europe and to Dubai at the expense of the Pakistani people. Zardari has been staying at five-star hotels everywhere he goes. He has been ferried around in private limousines. The security for him and his entourage is privately hired.

There’s no justification for spending that money that Pakistan so desperately needs. And of course, it’s ridiculous then to say that the president had to go abroad to lobby for funds for the flood victims, when in fact the flood victims could have benefited from the money that the Pakistani treasury has just spent on this enormously pointless visit.

Zardari is already seen as widely corrupt by most Pakistanis. His most recent gaffe is likely to work to the benefit of the Pakistani Army, which has been responsible for much of the aid that has been delivered to flood victims.

Second, much of the relief aid will come out of money that has been earmarked for development projects. That means that even if people can survive the next few months (which are likely to be marked by famine and outbreaks), they won’t really have lives to return to. Rehabilitation and reconstruction will be forthcoming only in the distant future. There are already signs that this will boil over into mass anger against the Pakistani state. Some commentators are speculating that food riots and major protests are highly likely.

Third, the disaster will only exacerbate the already tense ethnic situation in Pakistan. Over the past few years, a major rift has opened up between the displaced people of Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa (formerly the Northwest Frontier Province) and the people of Sindh and Punjab who see the refugees as drains on their resources and responsible for the rise in Islamic militancy.

The worst part about the humanitarian disaster in Pakistan is the fact that international aid has been very slow in coming. To date, the international community has only managed to offer a measly $150 million in aid. Pakistani officials estimate that they will need billions of dollars in order to manage the crisis.

Some in the American media have suggested that the problem is “donor fatigue” or “Pakistan fatigue” (implying that somehow Pakistani deaths are seen as less important than those caused by other natural disasters). The international community offered $1 billion in aid for earthquake relief in Haiti, for instance, and over $13 billion in aid for tsunami relief in India.

But the real problem is much simpler: the American ruling establishment has spent the last several years blaming Pakistan for its woes in Afghanistan. This has found an ugly corollary in the already rampant Islamophobia in the U.S. and Europe.

Washington, for instance, manages to give Pakistan $1 billion every year for its help in fighting the Taliban along the Afghan border. But when it comes to humanitarian relief, the U.S. could only find a meager $70 million.

Part of the reason for this paltry sum is that the U.S. is more concerned with its own geopolitical agenda in the region than humanitarian aid. But it also reflects political pressure from the conservative wing of the U.S. political establishment, which blames Pakistan for the American failures in Afghanistan.

Other countries are also providing limited aid. Neighboring India, for instance, a country well placed to offer substantial assistance to Pakistan, has put political rivalry ahead of humanitarian assistance, offering just $5 million in aid. Political opportunists in India are warning that any aid to Pakistan will go into the hands of “terrorist organizations.”

The ordinary people of Pakistan are caught between the war in Afghanistan that is killing increasing numbers of Pakistanis and the corrupt politicians who are wrecking the economy. The U.S. and Pakistani response to current flooding is a damning indictment of the failure of both governments to provide genuine help for the people of Pakistan.

Snehal Shingavi

SocialistWorker

August 16, 2010

Supreme Court under armed forces control, parliament deadlock continues

Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) blocked Supreme Court judges from entering the courthouse Monday morning a day after Civil Court ruled interim Supreme Court remains until the establishment of a permanent Supreme Court by the parliament.

On Sunday Civil Court ordered Defence Ministry to release Supreme Court keys withheld Saturday by the armed forces.

MNDF released the keys to a Supreme Court administrator on the court’s second attempt to retrieve them Monday morning instructing the official to carry out administrative work only.

Two Supreme Court judges including Ahmed Faiz nominated as Chief Justice by President Mohamed Nasheed were stopped at the gate by MNDF guards.

Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair later told Haveeru the government’s interpretation of the Civil Court ruling allowed the continuation of Supreme Court’s administrative functioning only and not its interim bench.

The government continues to follow advice given by resigned Attorney General (AG) Husnu Suood, Zuhair said.

Before his resignation Sunday morning “accepting blame for the constitutional void created by lack of interim period legislations” Suood said Supreme Court could only function with new judges – an argument contended by several legal experts who interpret the Civil Court ruling as declaring the continuation of the Supreme Court bench and not “its four walls.”

A major legal row sparked over the continuation of Supreme Court, some independent commissions and diplomats when parliament failed to legislate their continuation by the end of the constitutional interim period at midnight Saturday.

DRP Leader and Opposition Whip Ahmed Thasmeen Ali

The ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP)-led opposition which controls parliament majority were at loggerheads over setting the agenda order for a sitting eventually called off after three postponements.

“Legal advice given by the former Attorney General remains. The government interprets [the Civil Court ruling] as continuation of the administrative functioning of the court only, to ensure delivery of the people’s constitutional rights,” Zuhair said.

Meanwhile, the President’s Office arranged an oath taking ceremony Monday morning, Haveeru understand, to appoint Toursim Minister Ahmed Ali Sawad as the new AG.

But the ceremony was cancelled, Haveeru learnt, when President Nasheed received legal advice that it could not proceed without appointing new judges to the Supreme Court.

According to the constitution cabinet members shall take their oath of office before the Chief Justice or a judge appointed by the Chief Justice.

Interim Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed described the government’s move Monday as turning Supreme Court into a military court.

“Supreme Court can only be opened and closed on armed forces orders. The court’s functions are also directed by them. So I believe that the Supreme Court has been turned into a military court,” Saeed said.

Meanwhile, all four members of the panel decreed by President Nasheed to administer the functioning of Supreme Court and Department of Judicial Administration resigned less than 24 hours after they were appointed at midnight Saturday.

Muthasim Adnan, the last appointee to withdraw his name, wrote to President Nasheed it was not a responsibility he could perform “within the boundaries of the constitution now in place.”

On Sunday morning, President Nasheed and parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid discussed ways of expediting parliament’s work, but MPs failed to convene Monday.

Speaker Shahid told journalists Sunday he hoped to hold a sitting Tuesday if talks between opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) do not produce an outcome before Monday.

“I hope that we would be able to find a solution for [Monday’s] sitting. But considering the present circumstances, I do not think [Monday’s] sitting can be held. No party wishes to proceed with the sitting if the agenda is not in the way they want it,” he said
2010 August 08

Male

Source – Haveeru News Service

Elections and Opportunity in Myanmar

After taking office in 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama decided to use Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) as his Asian experiment in reversing Bush administration policy. As it did with Iran and Sudan, the Obama administration engaged with Myanmar’s junta, although it did not push to end sanctions, Congress passed in the late 1990s in response to massive human rights abuses. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell has made two trips to Myanmar over the past year to try to spur dialogue about critical issues like the upcoming national elections, which will probably take place in late fall. They would be Myanmar’s first since the 1990 polls won by the party of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, though the military never allowed that party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), to take its seats.

Engagement has delivered some results. A willingness to talk with the regime in Myanmar has signaled to the other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that Washington is committed to upgrading relations with Southeast Asia. The previous U.S. administration had allowed its poor relations with Myanmar to prevent it from meeting all ASEAN leaders. And by attempting to engage with Myanmar, the White House at least demonstrates to its Asian allies that it is willing to listen to them, since many Southeast Asian nations have long advocated an engagement-oriented approach to the junta.

But just as sanctions delivered few results, engagement also seems to be delivering little, despite Campbell’s good-faith efforts. The junta sent relatively low-ranking officials to meet with Campbell during his visit in May, a sign the regime is not taking the dialogue seriously. The junta also issued draconian regulations that essentially barred Suu Kyi from participating and forced the NLD into such a restricted position that it chose to boycott the poll. The junta then disbanded the party altogether.

Most worryingly, the regime appears to be pushing ahead with a reported nuclear program. The junta has in recent years built increasingly close military ties to North Korea, whose foreign minister just concluded a four-day visit to Myanmar. A report released in January by the respected Institute of Science and International Security revealed that the junta had been importing a range of items that had little civilian use in Myanmar, and could be used for nuclear or missile technology. Several months later, Al-Jazeera and the Democratic Voice of Burma, working with defectors and nonproliferation experts, reported that the junta is mining uranium and amassing technology that could only be used to develop a nuclear program.

Though many U.S. officials doubt the junta has taken serious steps toward building or acquiring a nuclear weapon, the strategy makes sense, since actually building a nuclear weapon would inoculate the xenophobic junta from outside pressure. American officials who once dismissed any nuclear claims now admit there is enough suspicious evidence that other countries must press the junta far harder to reveal more about its cooperation with North Korea and about why it is purchasing and building–and seemingly hiding—dual-use nuclear technology, especially since it has signed the treaty declaring Southeast Asia to be a nuclear-free zone.

How Elections Could Matter

Despite the junta’s intransigence with the United States, this year and next still promise a rare opportunity for the United States to play a larger role in Myanmar, and possibly gain some leverage over the regime.

Some opposition politicians still believe the election offers the best real chance to change the direction of a country mired in political and economic stasis. And Myanmar has become increasingly important, as rivalry between regional powers increases. Myanmar sits in a strategically vital location in Asia and possesses some of the region’s largest reserves of oil and gas. As a result, its future path is critical to the region, and to vital U.S. partners like India and Thailand.

Though the national election will undoubtedly be tightly controlled by the junta, which wants to maneuver its handpicked parties into power so that senior military officers can still wield influence from behind the scenes, some opposition politicians believe the election offers the best chance to change the direction of a country mired in political and economic stasis. As the International Crisis Group notes in a report on the run-up to the election, on the actual election day, the regime in Myanmar may very well allow voting to be relatively free and fair, as it did in 1990.

The junta has said that it will allow all parties contesting the election to have observers watching the counting. And though the NLD has chosen to boycott the election, a reasonable decision given the constraints placed upon it and Suu Kyi, the party was divided internally, with some younger members believing that, despite the restrictions, the NLD should have competed and reminded voters–and the regime–of its popular strength. Even with the NLD not competing, some NLD members have broken off and will contest the poll, as will a range of other small parties.

Together, these parties may deliver a handful of relatively independent-minded legislators. Though their freedom to act in parliament will still be constrained by the military, these legislators could build the foundation for a civilianization of the country and, down the road, a greater opening of the political system. If Myanmar moves toward a greater role for civilians in governance, it may allow a wider range of interlocutors with the United States and other regional powers. This could lift some of the veil of secrecy and xenophobia surrounding the government, perhaps even opening the way for greater U.S. Influence.

Even more important, a serious humanitarian crisis now looms in Myanmar’s ethnic minority regions, mostly located in the north and east of the country. These areas are patrolled by a range of ethnic minority armies, the most powerful of which, the United Wa State Army, has over twenty thousand men under arms and has supported itself by building one of the largest narco trafficking organizations in the world. The junta wants to essentially disarm the ethnic minority militias roaming many of these areas, to make them part of a regime-controlled border guard force; until now, the junta had maintained fragile ceasefires with many of these ethnic insurgents. Not surprisingly, many insurgent groups do not want to lay down their arms, and several are boosting their arsenals, getting the cash to buy new weapons by upping drug sales.

There is now a real possibility of an outbreak of armed conflict in [Myanmar's frontier] regions, a conflict that would spark massive refugee flows, and, most likely, higher rates of HIV/AIDS and narco trafficking. There is now a real possibility of an outbreak of armed conflict in these regions, a conflict that would spark massive refugee flows, and, most likely, higher rates of HIV/AIDS and narco trafficking, both of which flourish amid the instability and chaos of Myanmar’s frontiers. Renewed conflict could destabilize the whole region, including parts of China, India, and Thailand–reason enough for Washington to be concerned.

Most worryingly, if such instability spreads, any nuclear components, fuel, or products built or imported by the junta could easily fall into the hands of criminal networks, insurgents, or even terrorists operating in the lawless areas of Myanmar’s north and east.

Policy Options

U.S. options toward the regime in capital city Naypyidaw remain limited given the junta’s isolation; the United States’ distance from Myanmar; and the relative importance of other regional actors like China, India, Singapore, and Thailand. The junta does seem to crave Washington’s recognition, in part to use the United States to hedge against China’s influence in Myanmar. These options remain limited despite (justifiable) congressional interest in Myanmar’s ongoing human rights abuses. Congress has imposed tough sanctions, yet other than isolating the junta’s bank accounts in places like Singapore and Dubai, which are viable options, there is little more Congress can do to punish the regime.

Beyond these types of financial measures, the United States can use the potential crisis in Myanmar’s ethnic areas to work more closely with Beijing to stabilize its border regions with Myanmar. In contrast to the Korean peninsula, Myanmar offers a real opportunity for U.S.-China cooperation, since Washington and Beijing have fewer hard security conflicts in Myanmar. And the potential dangers Myanmar poses to China are high, in the form of drugs, HIV infections, and refugees flowing across Myanmar’s borders. Already, China has shown more willingness to cooperate on Myanmar, helping facilitate U.S. meetings with the junta and more publicly rebuking Naypyidaw for fomenting instability than it would ever dare do with Pyongyang.

Together, Washington and Beijing could boost humanitarian aid into the ethnic minority areas. It could be delivered either across the borders from China or Thailand, where there is already a sophisticated infrastructure for moving aid into Myanmar, or from inside Myanmar itself. Washington and Beijing could also increase outside contacts to the ethnic minority armies to monitor nontraditional security threats and help broker a renewed truce that allows for greater aid, prevents renewed conflict, and keeps Myanmar’s borders stable. Finally, the United States and China could monitor Myanmar’s potential nuclear program and, eventually, increase the pressure on Naypyidaw to reveal far more about its intentions, since Beijing certainly does not want the junta building a nuclear infrastructure.

Beijing’s concerns could open a window for cooperation at a time when the U.S.-China relationship seems increasingly strained, particularly over Southeast Asia. Washington should be ready to seize the chance.

By Joshua Kurlantzick

Fellow for South East Asia

03 August, 2010

Looking East: India’s Eden or Land of Nod?

Initially conceived of as India’s way out of post Cold War economic stagnation, New Delhi’s “Look East “ policy is the world’s largest democracy shot at finding its place in a globalized world—which was initially dominated by the US but later rebalanced by the dramatic rise of China and concomitant need for India to enhance its economic and diplomatic links with the growing Asian economies to its east.

The end of the Cold War was the nail in the coffin for India’s non-aligned movement aspirations—for a third way between the super powers. Without the two superpowers to play off against, the non-aligned movement faded into the past.

Still, with a stagnant economy fueling widespread and often raw poverty, India was a sickly “tiger,” unlike the dynamic big cats in East and Southeast Asia. Looking “East” offered not only new markets and trading partners, but models of economic growth and development for India.

Prof. Sandy Gordon, who teaches at Australian National University and is a founding editor of the “South Asia Masala”, told The Irrawaddy: “The Asian Tigers to India’s East were seen not only as role models for economic liberalization, but also as markets and a new geopolitical sphere—one with which India was more comfortable at that time that it was with a policy of reaching out in unambiguous terms to the West.”

India’s economic growth continues to be impressive, with the International Monetary Fund now projecting 9.4 percent growth for India in 2010, plotted to drop a bit to 8.4 percent in 2011.

Like elsewhere in Asia, India has rebounded quickly—compared to the West—from the global 2008 economic downturn. India’s super rich have emerged to take their place alongside the financial elites elsewhere, and as the country’s middle class expands, vast numbers of people are being lifted out of poverty, and the country is producing world class multinational companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Tata and others.

However the country’s vast and often raw poverty remains, according to a new

Poverty has always seen South Asian societies being militarised, to keep social contradictions surfacing with a new challenge to the existing status quo, under check. Poverty is not accounted for in GDP and Per Capita Income growth, their evidence of economic growth

“multidimensional poverty index” developed at Oxford, and soon to be harnessed by the UN’s Human Development Report. This index numbers 410 million Indians in poverty, meaning there are more poor people in eight Indian states than in all 26 countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

To help these vast hundreds of millions escape from poverty, India will likely remain focused on boosting economic links with the Asia-Pacific region, as current forecasts and projections indicate that this part of the world will remain the most vibrant region in the global economy in the medium term.

Asean and Burma are an important aspect of this strategy. India is now part of the Asean Regional Forum, the East Asian Summit and the Asia-Europe Meeting. The free trade agreement it signed with Asean in 2009 has been described as the crowning glory of the “Look East” policy. Amitendu Palit, a visiting research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) at the National University of Singapore. said that the main success of Look East “is clearly economic.”

However the Free Trade Agreement is much more limited than the deal Asean signed with China, and India-Asean trade is growing from a low base, in any case. While the FTA is a milestone, it needs work, said Amitendu Palit. He told The Irrawaddy that “India needs to work with its Eastern neighbors for improving trade facilitation and enabling greater export of services.”

Going beyond economics, India has extensive defense dealings with Singapore, Australia and Japan and defense relationships with Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. In terms of India’s dealings with Burma, the rise of China, strategic and defense planning and India’s need to develop investment and trade links all coalesce.

As China rises, the US is engaging more in the region, aligning behind Asean and allies such as South Korea where it can on issues like control of the South China Sea and on various military training exercises. India’s nuclear and strategic relationship with the US fits into this, with Washington perhaps hoping to build up India as a hedge against China’s rise, in an act of old-school balance-of-power politics. This has its limits, however, with the US also giving billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan, which India believes to be funding “Jihadists” in Kashmir and behind terror attacks on the Indian parliament in 2001 and more recently in Indian cities.

Given that China and Pakistan are long-standing allies, India naturally enough will seek its own arrangements elsewhere in Asia, and on its own terms, even if this means an amicable relationship with a Burmese regime that is allegedly-working with the same North Korea that helped Pakistan go nuclear over a decade ago.

The big picture is, that, despite India’s growth and dynamism, Chinese military spending is bigger, and has been for some time, meaning that India is falling farther behind year by year, with China set to launch its first aircraft carrier in coming years, significantly boosting its ability to project power into the Indian Ocean and beyond.

India therefore sees itself as needing to engage with Burma to counter China, economically and strategically, even if it appears that New Delhi is lagging, according to K. Yhome, an associate fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, a think-tank based in New Delhi.

China’s new port and pipeline facility on Burma’s west coast will not only allow it to pipe gas

In August 2000, Daewoo International signed a production sharing contract with the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Burmese military government. In early 2004, Daewoo announced they had struck a "world class commercial scale gas deposit" in the A-1 block in Sittwe sea port area. A month later, Daewoo acquired the neighbouring A-3 block. A US firm, determined the available reserves at 5.4 - 9.1 trillion cubic feet (tfc). The sale of 9.1 tfc would be worth US$ 40.1 billion. Out of this amount, Burma's military regime would stand to gain US$ 24 billion over the 20-year contract, or US$ 1.2 billion per year.

from the Shwe field into China, but also involves Beijing’s building of a terminal to allow it to pipe oil and gas shipments from the Middle East and Africa into China, avoiding the need to send tankers through heavy traffic through the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea, where US naval power is likely to be dominant for a long time to come.

Indian energy companies are investing in the Shwe field nonetheless, which is expected to bring almost US 1billion a year in additional revenues for the Burmese regime, once it comes on stream. Burma is a lynchpin for the Look East policy as it is the land bridge between India and Asean, with the two countries sharing a porous 1,640 km border across which rebel groups have crossed at will. Burma’s junta previously supported ethnic and leftist rebel militias in retaliation for India’s pro-democracy, pro- Aung San Suu Kyi stance up to 1993. This was ironic given that the Burmese junta had spent years fighting Communist militias inside Burma.

In New Delhi on Wednesday, Burmese junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe held talks with India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, before they later signed agreements to combat the smuggling of arms, drugs and ammunition across their common frontier and co-operate in the fields of information, science and technology—where India and its formidable IT sector promises a significant advancement for IT infrastructure and capabilities in Burma.

At least five major militant groups from India’s Northeast, where numerous tribal and ethnic groups are fighting for greater autonomy or independence, have at one time or another had training camps in the dense jungles of Sagaing in Northern Burma, while ethnic militias in Burma have in turn used India’s remote North-East as a retreat and staging post into Burma.

As well as Indian support for his plan to coerce Burmese ethnic militias into joining the border guard force, Than Shwe will also, presumably, acquire much-craved international legitimization for the 2010 election, signing agreements with the world’s largest democracy almost simultaneous to US President Obama renewing American sanctions on the Burmese regime. Than Shwe’s four-day visit to India notably takes place just a few weeks after he hosted Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, thereby reassuring New Delhi that it remains central to his thinking.

It is doubtful if India’s leaders were rattled by pro-democracy protests marking Than Shwe’s visit, or by the US’s attempt at exhorting New Delhi to put more pressure on Than Shwe to ensure a free and fair election or work toward national reconciliation in Burma.

Growing mutual links—in the context of India’s growing regional clout, needed to improve regional trade links and counter China—mean that, as K. Yhome told The Irrawaddy, “It is unlikely both countries would want to rock their hard-earned relationship in the near future.”

By Simon Roughneen

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Bangkok

For original post – http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19084&page=1

How “responsible” SL Editors play foul on Readers

Thanks to Weerawansa’s “farce unto death” on a saline drip, major media “Ustaads” have been exposed even without a fig leaf to hide their professional nudity. Unfortunately, the media is not judged on their performance and taken to task for their lapses.

The Weerawansa fiasco is one incident that gathered major media coverage and thus provides ample space for an assessment of media professionalism and independence. “Daily Mirror” (DM), generally talked of as impartial and professional than most Sinhala news papers therefore would be best for this purpose. To talk on journalistic independence and media professionalism.

DM went online breaking news and providing explanations on their ‘broken’ news, clearly showing the slip that was intentionally “anti Ban Ki-moon”. Being anti Ban Ki-moon at that point of time in Sri Lanka, was (01) consciously getting in step with the government instigated Weerawansa ‘comedy’ (02) openly accepting the editorial policy as bias and not independent and (03) letting down the ‘Readers’ by publishing wholly twisted reports.

This is a case in point, on such DM reportage. Bias to the core and intentionally nuanced and malicious in reporting.

On 09 July at 11.50 am, DM told its readers that Ban Ki-moon had issued a statement misleading every one. Captioned “Ban statement misleading” it said, [quote] UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has misled the media and the public by giving the impression that the UNDP Regional Center situated in Sri Lanka had been closed as a result of the protest being carried out by Minister Wimal Weerawansa outside the UN country office in Colombo [unquote] The tone of the DM language without nuances, is loudly accusing.

Now, whom is DM using to accuse UN Secretary General as wrong and misleading ? An unnamed “UN Colombo official”. The man who took the decision to close down the UN regional centre in Colombo and says why he closed it down, is not “right and true” for DM. Why ? That does not fit the pre determined stand of DM on this whole Weerawansa fiasco. So they went to an unnamed local source to report what they had already decided, they would publish. “That the UN regional office in Colombo was not closed due to Weerawansa’s crude “patriotism”. How professional is that journalism ?

The DM did not stop at that. They wanted to prove their position with this unnamed, unidentified source in Colombo is right and carried the next news post the same day (09 July) at 23.00 hours with a caption, “UN contradicts UN again”. The report says,

[quote] Just hours after the UN office in Colombo said that the closing down of the UNDP Regional Center in Sri Lanka was not linked to the protests outside the UN in Colombo, UN Associate spokesman Farhan Haq told reporters in New York a short while ago that both were linked.[unquote]

Who is this “UN office in Colombo” source that DM keeps insisting is more authoritative than even the UN Secretary General and the Associate Spokesperson ? Its the same unnamed, unidentified UN Colombo official. If at this point, the DM was so certain about its “Colombo office” source they should have clearly said who it is, instead of continuing to quote this unnamed, unidentified local source to contradict the UN Secretary General and the UN Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq, for such is not professionalism.

In fact with such stress laid down by both the UN Secretary General and the Associate spokesperson at UN head quarters on why the UN regional office in Colombo was closed, the right caption and the right news should have been that the Colombo office and the unnamed unidentified person has not been in line with the official UN position and has thus been giving out wrong information, misleading the media and the public. That was, IF the DM was independent and free of political bias.

DM did not want it that way. The DM news report thus says, [quote] When contacted by Daily Mirror online today, a UN Colombo official clarified that preparations were underway for several months now to close down the UNDP Regional Center in Sri Lanka and it was not linked with Weerawansa’s protest. [unquote]

Why did the DM contact an unnamed local source, when two top UN positions had officially stated the reason for the closure of the Colombo regional office ? If they still did not believe the two official UN statements from NY, why did not the DM contest that with their source named and with facts and figures ?

The UN regional office in Colombo did not allow DM to stay put with its pun on the news and sent in a clearly worded statement the next day. Therefore, on 10 July at 11.26 am, DM had to publish this UN Colombo regional office statement, on line. The DM once again tried a twist on it by giving that post the caption, “UN Lanka clarifies stand”. That in fact was not a clarification of the UN position, but “a correction” to DM’s previous day Gobel’s reporting on the closure.

This is how the DM says it in their “clarifying” news. [quote] Daily Mirror online had earlier quoted a UN Colombo official as saying that preparations were underway for several months now to close down the UNDP Regional Center in Sri Lanka and it was not linked to the protest outside the UN compound.[unquote]

Contradicting this unnamed “UN Colombo official” that DM wished to quote previously, the UN regional office in Colombo in an official e-mail sent to DM online, said that there was no doubt a ‘down sizing’ of its regional office in Colombo and also said very clearly they had in fact discussed it with the External Affairs ministry. But the statement clearly said this time the closure was the result of Weerawans’a protests.

This is how the Colombo regional office statement which confirms Ban Ki-moon’s New York statement 02 days before and Farhan Haq’s brief to reporters, contradicts the DM’s unnamed Colombo UN official. [quote] However in light of the UN Secretary General’s decision announced two days ago the UN is now closing the regional center outright and it is a direct response to the situation in Colombo and the inability for the UN staff to do their work without hindrance.[unquote]

That was simple, clear and loud enough for any fifth grader to understand the reason for the closure of the Colombo office. Yet not for DM and its editorial. For they had their ulterior motive(s) in making the UN a “comedy of contradictions” and save their comedy hero Weerawansa.

Who is this unnamed, unidentified Colombo office spokesman who played it out with the DM that DM refrains from naming ?

He is, most definitely Mohan Samaranayake, the Communication Officer with the Colombo UN office. This person who has broken all ethical and moral standards of decent professional behaviour and perhaps UN conditions of employment too, sitting in the Public Performance Board (PPB), a statutory board appointed by the government minister in charge, was the person who went round saying the closure of the UN facility in Colombo had nothing to do with the protests and that was pre determined. Being a privileged person of this Rajapaksa government, Samaranayake has been faithful to the regime here rather than to his “employer”, the UN. He was quoted by the AP and also by the Nation news paper on the same issue, although the DM kept him unnamed and undisclosed.

This also brings out the issue, what the UN would do, or should do with such local employees who not only contradicts UN interests in pledging their loyalty with the country government, but also helps ridicule and insult the UN, publicly.

Conniving with such devalued persons who are not even identified, such is the vested interest in DM’s professional media culture. Twist, turn and toast the news to suit its own petty agenda, never mind the responsibility to the “reader” public.

The Sri Lankan media in general has been this over the past half decade. It had tried to project itself as nationalistic and patriotic. In the process, they had given up their professionalism and their independence.

Therefore, there is no logic in asking the government to allow media freedom, when Editors and journalists themselves don’t act independent and ethically. They have to first establish their independence within the framework of the “Code of Professional Practice” known as the Code of Ethics drafted, agreed and accepted by the Editors’ Guild itself.

The editors who drafted this Code of Ethics for all journalists, agreed foremost in its preamble that [quote] This code of practice which is binding on all Press institutions and journalists, aims to ensure that the print medium in Sri Lanka is free and responsible and sensitive to the needs and expectations of its readers, while maintaining the highest international standard of journalism. [unquote]

The preamble goes on to say, “those standards require newspapers to strive for accuracy and professional integrity, and to uphold the best traditions of investigative journalism in the public interest, unfettered by distorting commercialism or by improper pressure or by narrow self-interest which conspires against press freedom”.

We are yet to see editors sticking by this Code of Ethics. There is no talk of journalists being told and advised by editors to work according to their own Code of Ethics.

One may also take refuge by saying that this Code of Ethics is only for the print media and not for others. But, an irresponsible editor handling a web based online news portal as an extension of the print media, can not be a responsible editor in the print media. That apart, this code of ethics should be discussed for all media now, for it is not print media alone that fashion the mindset of this society. True, this would not be taken as a responsibility by the publishers or their association(s). For they are all in this Sri Lanka, where businesses are almost always State sponsored and politically patronised. It is therefore, once again the Editors and journalists who would have to work towards an independent media and for their own self respect.

Kusal Perera

for DM reports, click links below -

http://www.dailymirror.lk/index.php/news/4950-the-big-ban-lie.html

http://www.dailymirror.lk/index.php/news/4971-un-contradicts-un-again.html

http://www.dailymirror.lk/index.php/news/4978-un-lanka-clarifies-stand.html#comment-125848

Qureshi – Krishna talks end proving need for people’s support

As one more round of talks ended between India and Pakistan led by ministers S.M. Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi, arm chair intellectuals, analysts and policy makers called them a failure and compared the talks to the famous Agra failure of Vajpayee – Musharaf talks.

The politicians of both countries seem to be taking their populace for a ride. The only favorite issue that come as a stumbling block is the issue of terrorism or Kashmir. It has become a fashion to announce that talks have failed, but will continue. These are the countries which are ranked as 134 and 141 in the UN Human Development Index. They nevertheless buy the largest amount of arms in the region. A full fledged war has not been fought by them for the past 38 years, yet the defense budgets keep swelling at the cost of the hungry bellies of the impoverished masses.

On the Pakistani side, there is great concern over India’s role in aiding terrorism in Balochistan, Punjab and Fata. Though India has been refuting all such accusations, the Pakistani media and its politicians have not really blown it the way India has blown over Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism on Indian soil.

David Coleman Headley, a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative who is accused of conducting reccé for the Mumbai attacks, is in a Chicago jail and was recently interrogated by a team of Indian National Investigation Agency (NIA). Immediately Mr. Shiv Shankar Menon, the National Security Adviser of India said the interrogation of the key accused in Mumbai blast case David Coleman Headley brought to the fore the linkages between the official establishment and intelligence agencies with terror groups.

“For us, most recently what we learnt from Headley, it is really the links between official establishment and intelligence agencies, (it) is the nexus which (is) making it much harder to deal with,” he said.

He said the information gathered suggests that this nexus will not go away but get stronger in the future.

“Unfortunately, what we know and what we see suggests that these links or nexus (between terror outfits and official establishment) would not be broken soon. If anything, it is getting stronger,” he said.

However, Pakistan has dismissed Menon’s accusations as ‘baseless’.

The official stand was that Menon’s accusations were yet another manifestation of the Indian establishment’s propagandistic stance towards Pakistan. In a statement, Pakistan foreign office spokesperson Abdul Basit said Menon’s comments were “entirely inconsistent with the understanding reached between the leadership of the two countries” during a meeting on the sidelines of the SAARC summit in Bhutan. That understanding was “terrorism was a common threat which needed to be addressed in a co-operative manner”.

Kashmir is another issue which does not allow the leaders of these two neighboring States to move forward. Kashmir provides enough space and scope for the leaders of these two countries to produce hate monsters and keep the imagination of their respective countries occupied as to what would happen next. As long as this issue remains unresolved there cannot be progress or a meaningful dialogue between neighbors. India and Pakistan want to solve the Kashmir issue to the advantage of each State. To both, it is of prime importance as the issue of “national security” is involved here, that leaves the Kashmiris unimportant and high and dry.

After the latest round of talks, the Hurriyat Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said. Hurriyat’s point of view is that unless and until both countries — India and Pakistan — come close to each other, the prospects of Kashmir issue being resolved are less.
“…the sad part is that we are still caught in jugglery of words and political jargons and there does not seem to be any sincerity on resolving the issue. We maintain that the core issue between the two countries is Kashmir. Yes, there are other issues which are also important but we have maintained that an India – Pakistan dialogue can only be in the right direction if we see some changes on the ground…”

Umar Farooq also advocated that policy makers in New Delhi should listen to its own Army Chief General V K Singh, who has said that Kashmir was a political issue and needed to be resolved politically.

Umar Farooq also said, Hurriyat was very disappointed that no headway has been made though some contact is there (between the two countries). At least in the future, for talks to be successful, the leaders of both the countries should try to accommodate Kashmiri leaders from both sides of the divide to have a meaningful people oriented dialogue and not dictate terms to the Kashmiris.

For people’s need and democracy

In the interest of the people of both the countries more confidence building measures and small gestures at the ground level that can facilitate future peace talks in a friendly manner can be taken up. Among them, India can

  • Reduce the troops in Kashmir and instill confidence among the civilians
  • Order inquiries into disappearance cases
  • Allow Pakistan to open a consulate in Mumbai which has been a long standing request of Pakistan
  • Grant more visas to human rights activists, lawyers, journalists to visit India and exchange views with their Indian counterparts
  • Resume sports contacts

Pakistan on the other hand can

  • Allow screening of Bollywood movies
  • Reopen the Indian Consulate in Karachi
  • Facilitate the visit of Indian pilgrims to Pakistan
  • Allow transit trade between India and Afghanistan
  • Promise to control terrorism and close down all the terrorist training camps

On the other hand both the countries could agree to

  • Share information on terrorism
  • Agree for mutual assistance in investigation and prosecution on alleged terror activities across borders
  • Promote free trade in the entire zone
  • Move towards establishing a common South Asian currency
  • Agree to mutually review the progress periodically

Though Krishna and Qureshi failed their respective people in the interest of their country, there is hope that these two countries would work together for the betterment of humanity and not enter into mud slinging as each round of talks is conducted utilising public money and there seems to be no accountability towards it. If both the sides are protecting their so called ‘national interests’, what is national interest? If it does not serve the interest of the common man across both the sides of the border.

Dr. Paul Newman

Bangalore University

The writer could be contacted – <paulnewman@rediffmail.com>

As Sri Lanka Minister Blocks 150 UN Staff, UN Nambiar Assured by Kohona

With 300 UN staff kept out of work in Sri Lanka due to Tuesday’s hostage situation, the UN on Wednesday told Inner City Press it had gotten assurances “at a high level” that this would not continue.

Before Inner City Press could ask if the UN had yet spoke with any of the three Rajapaksa brothers who run the country, UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq specified the “high level” meeting: it was between the “chef de cabinet” of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Vijay Nambiar, and Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative at the UN, Palitha Kohona. Video here, from Minute 9:37.

To some, this is more than a little ironic. After questions about his objectivity and even involvement in the killing of surrendering rebels holding white flags, Vijay Nambiar rather than hold a press conference gave a single TV interview.

In footage never aired by seen by Inner City Press, Nambiar said he was given assurances that those surrendering would be treated in compliance with international law. These assurances were given by two Rajapaksas and by Palitha Kohona.

That assurance, as described by Mr Nambiar himself, didn’t work out. Why will this one?

Kohona, it must be noted, approached Inner City Press to deny the timing that Nambiar described. Kohona says he spoke to Nambiar AFTER assurances were given to the surrenderees.

Either way, both Nambiar and Kohona are at least witnesses for any inquiry into this war crime. How can they be the two sides of a conversation meant to protect UN staff from a hostage taking threatened and led by a Sri Lanka government minister?

Some wonder whether Mr. Ban keeping Mr. Nambiar as his point-man on Sri Lanka, despite the questions raised, doesn’t explain why the rest of Ban’s staff is seemingly unaware of the troubling scene in Colombo, and why the Ban Administration’s excuses for the hostage taking of UN staff by a government minister have been so noticeable, and different from Ban’s approach to Sudan or Zimbabwe. Watch this site.

Update: at 2:45 p.m. after his noon briefing response, Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq announced to the Press that while he had said there were 400 staff normally at the UN in Colombo, with a quarter deemed essential, the total number is in fact 200. Noted — this update was published minutes after Haq’s announcement.

July 7, 2010 — By Matthew Russell Lee

(02)

As UN Capitulates and Closes Sri Lanka Office, Conflict in Council, Bribery Alleged

With Sri Lanka government minister Wimal Weerawansa threatening to get “more serious” than Tuesday’s hostage taking of UN staff, and the UN capitulating by closing its office in Colombo on Wednesday, in New York the UN Security Council will meet on Wednesday morning. The topic is “The Protection of Civilians.”

On Tuesday evening the political coordinator of a non-permanent Council member told Inner City Press his Ambassador may raise to other Council members the hostage taking of and threats against UN staff in Sri Lanka.

He said the Council meets about the temporary arrest of a single shepherd in some parts of the world, but has yet to discuss the attacks on UN staff in Sri Lanka.

The problem, he said, is Russia and China, both of which for geo-strategic reasons have expressed support for the Rajapaksa government’s attacks on the UN for naming even an advisory panel on war crimes in Sri Lanka. Both sell weapons to the Rajapaksas; China is developing a major port, reportedly with prison labor.

But will China and Russia be willing to support these attacks on UN staff led by government minister Wimal Weerawansa?

Inner City Press asked two senior UN officials on Tuesday night about Weerawansa’s call to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, which resulted in the police stepping back to allow the hostage taking of UN staff to proceed.

One official shook his head ruefully and said, “That’s a problem.” The other dutifully said “We are still checking to see who Weerawansa called.”

Well, here is a Weerawansa quote to the BBC, about Ban capitulating on even his advisory panel: “If he doesn’t do that, we will make our protest more serious.”

Meanwhile Weerawansa is blaming the subsequent (and gentle) re-engagement by police on an unnamed UN official having paid a bribe to the police. What will be the UN’s belated response? Watch this site.

July 7, 2010 — By Matthew Russell Lee

Pluses and Minuses of Sri Lanka – EU stand off on GSP +

The case of Sri Lanka haggling over trade benefits offered by the EU through its Generalised System of Preferences “Plus” (GSP+) is seen as one between democratising society and living on “patriotism +” (related reading – http://www.thesundayleader.lk/category/opinion/columns/politics-governance/ ) with the Sri Lankan government pinning the EU position as that of an infringement on the “sovereignty” of Sri Lanka.

Below are the conditions required by the EU to extend the GSP+ benefits and the letter of response by the SL government, as sent by its External Affairs Ministry.

The 15 EU conditions:

Here are the 15 conditions spelt out by the European Commission for renewal of GSP+
1. Reduction of the number of derogations to the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
2. Take steps to ensure that the key objective of the 17th Amendment to Constitution, namely to provide for independent impartial appointments to key public positions, is fully safeguarded, including through Constitutional Council which adequately reflect the interest of all political, ethic and religious groups and minorities within Sri Lankan society.

3. Repeal the remaining part of the 2005 Emergency regulations, notably those Regulations concerning detention without trial, restrictions on freedom of movement, ouster of jurisdiction and immunity and repeal of the 2006 Emergency Regulations (Gazette No 1474/5/2006). If GoSL considers that it is essential to retain certain provisions which are compatible with the ICCPR or UNCAT, such as provisions concerning possession of weapons, such provisions should be transferred to the Criminal Code.
4. Repeal of those sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act which are incompatible with the ICCPR (in particular sections 9,10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 26) or amendment so as to make them clearly compatible with the ICCPR.
5. Repeal of the ouster clause in section 8 and the immunity clause in section 9 of the Public Security Ordinance or amendment so as to make them clearly compatible with the ICCPR.
6. Adoption of the planned amendments to the code of Criminal Procedure, which provide for the right of a suspect to see a lawyer immediately following arrest.
7. Legislative steps necessary to allow individuals to submit complaints to the UN Human Rights Commission under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and to the UN Committee against Torture under Article 22.
8. Steps to implement outstanding opinions of the UN Human Rights Committee in individual cases.
9. Extension of an invitation to the following UN Special Procedures who have requested to visit Sri Lanka (UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, UN Special Rapporteur pn Torture, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers).
10. Responses to a significant number of individual cases currently pending before the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.
11. Publication of the complete final report of the 2008 Commission of Enquiry.
12. Publication or making available to family members a list of the former LTTE combatants currently held in detention as well as all other persons detained under the Emergency Regulations. Decisive steps to bring to an end the detention of any persons held under the Emergency Regulations either by releasing them or by bringing them to trial.
13. Granting of access to all places of detention for monitoring purposes to an independent humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
14. Adoption of the National Human Rights Action Plan by Parliament and its prompt implementation.
15. Take steps to ensure journalists can exercise their professional duties without harassment.

Response from Ministry of External Affairs
Statement concerning the European Commission letter of 17th June to the Minister of External Affiars -

The Government of Sri Lanka received a letter dated 17th June 2010 from the European Commission (EC) stating that the GSP+ preferences could be extended for a limited additional period, subject to a clear commitment by Sri Lanka to full fill all of 15 conditions spelt out in a list attached to the Commission letter. The letter and its list were considered by the Cabinet of Ministers at their meeting on Wednesday, 23rd June. It is the view of the Government that the position taken up by the Commission, involves the imposition of a series of conditions, the cumulative effect of which is clearly inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.
The Government wishes to emphasize that it has, for its part, always acted on this issue in the best interest of the country, as well as of the long standing partnership between Sri Lanka and Europe. When in October 2008 the European Commission decided to launch its “investigation”, Sri Lanka was facing the unprecedented turbulence of a severe terrorist onslaught. Given this situation it was inopportune for Sri Lanka to participate in such a process. The Government also pointed out that, despite the severe constraints being then encountered, there were nevertheless several other ongoing processes of engagement both between Sri Lanka and the European institutions and with the UN system, which could be drawn upon to clear up any matters of doubt. Moreover, the propriety of the “investigation” due to its per se discriminatory nature, was difficult to perceive.
However, with the “investigation” coming to a conclusion and the EC asking for comments on its report of October 2009, the Government provided a comprehensive response. Thereafter, on 15th February 2010, the EC announced its decision to withdraw the GSP+ trade benefits from Sri Lanka, with the decision taking place six months later with effect from 15th August 2010. In the Press Release conveying this decision, the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission stated : “The EU remains open to a full dialogue with the Government of Sri Lanka, above all to encourage it to take the necessary steps towards an effective implementation of GSP+ relevant Human Rights Conventions”. The Press Release went on to add : “Once sufficient progress has been made, the Commission will propose to EU Member States that the decision taken today be reversed and GSP+ benefits restored”.
The Government of Sri Lanka immediately responded to the offer of dialogue by reaffirming that “Sri Lanka will therefore continue her engagement with the EU in the upcoming six months”. The Government also added that, for the engagement to be purposeful, “the setting of unattainable targets and the shifting of goal posts” should be avoided.
The Government followed up by on its pledge of engagement by sending delegations which included the Hon. Attorney-General, the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and Planning, the Secretary of the Justice Ministry and the Secretary of the External Affairs Ministry, for two rounds of talks in Brussels in March and in May this year. The Sri Lanka delegation pointed out that the end of the extraordinary situation of terror faced by Sri Lanka for almost three decades, has enabled the authorities to scale down and roll back the laws and regulations specifically enacted to deal with the contingencies of that period. In the discussion in May, the delegation illustrated the actions being taken by the Government towards this end by pointing out the very significant scaling down by Parliament on 6th May 2010 of the Emergency Regulations and of the establishment of the Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation.
The other such examples were the rapid and sustainable reintegration of the internally displaced back to their places of livelihood, the successful and conclusive end to the issue of child soldiers recruited by the LTTE and the counselling and vocational guidance given to former LTTE cadres who had surrendered, with releases already of approximately 3,600.
The delegation also responded comprehensively to a host of issues raised with regard to the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, the Evidence Ordinance, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Public Security Ordinance, the Judicature Act, the independence of the judiciary and of legal practitioners and the proposed National Human Rights Action Plan. The delegation called upon the European Union (EU) and its Member States to give appropriate consideration to the manifold challenges pertaining to the development process faced by Sri Lanka and invited the EU to extend its partnership, in keeping with the long standing tradition of friendly ties.
The letter of 17th June from the European Commission states : “We positively acknowledge the steps which the Government of Sri Lanka has taken to address the concerns raised in the European Commission report of 19th October 2009”. Notwithstanding this acknowledgement the conditions attached to the letter dated 17th June and addressed to the External Affairs Minister of Sri Lanka jointly by the High Representative, Vice President of the European Commission and by the Member of the European Commission, are so unacceptably intrusive as to require the public to be appraised of their implications of acceptance of these conditions. Accordingly, the full list is annexed.
It would be observed that condition number two relates to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The wording is such as to leave no discretion for the Government or the people of Sri Lanka, to decide on this issue of vital national importance. In fact, one possible result of such a mechanism might be the perpetuation of the fragmentation that terrorism sought to inflict, through encouraging mindsets based on perceived ethnic, religious and political divergences, instead of the more positive approach of all perceiving themselves as equal members of a wider Sri Lanka family. In any event, the Commission’s demands with regard to the 17th Amendment clearly represent an unacceptable intervention in the internal affairs of this country.
The third condition would, inter alia, result in those LTTE cadres who are now undergoing counselling and vocational training, having to be abruptly released without the necessary logistical support. This inevitably would have the impact of eliminating the opportunity for them to acquire civilian skills, whilst creating a conducive climate for those wanting to rekindle the embers of separatist terror.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is referred to in item 4 of the list, was adopted on the basis of existent provisions already in force in several democratic nations, including those of Western Europe. It is observed that similar provisions adopted by certain developed nations, are far more stringent. Sri Lanka, too, might need to contemplate measures of a similar import, having regard to endeavours such as the formation of the so called “Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam”. Decisions relating to the need for vigilance in this regard are matters for the elected Government of Sri Lanka, and not for any external agency.
The request for repeal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Public Security Ordinance as per item 5, stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the intent of the two sections. The provision of immunity for acts commissioned in good faith stems from an universally accepted dictum of governance, namely that acts are presumed to have been correctly performed. There is in no way any scope for mala fide acts being shielded through these sections. We cannot endorse the Commission’s demand for attribution of liability to public officers, who are constrained to act in good faith to protect life and limb in extremely challenging situations.
The conditions listed as items 7 and 8 would require an Act of Parliament to override a considered decision of the Supreme Court, which has proceeded to pronounce that the domestic laws and mechanisms have more than adequately provided for the protection and safeguarding of fundamental rights in keeping with national law and treaty obligations. In our view, it is hardly for the Commission to demand the reversal of a decision by the highest Court of Sri Lanka.
The matters referred to in item 12 are now superfluous given that the LTTE cadres in protective custody have been permitted access to their family members and to legal services. The majority of them have or will be released upon the completion of the counselling and rehabilitation programme, while a much smaller group, having regard to the gravity of their involvement, would be subjected to criminal proceedings. This process is well under way. In any event, whether all persons held under Emergency Regulations should be immediately released or not, is a matter which should be decided upon by the Government of Sri Lanka, and not by an external agency.
Item 13 of the list, which refers to a role for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is under consideration. It has to be noted that the conditions under which the ICRC first began operations in Sri Lanka in 1989 have now ceased to exist, with the termination of the conflict situation in May 2009.
The reference in item 14 to the National Human Rights Action Plan is a matter upon which, as mentioned above, the EC has been fully briefed wherein the Government of Sri Lanka is keenly pursuing the initiative.
It must be appreciated that international law as well as the practice of multilaterism are based on the sovereign equality of nations, which principle Sri Lanka holds sacrosanct. It is therefore constitutionally imperative for the Government to leave no room for an usurpation of sovereignty. The possible expectation of the restoration of the GSP+, cannot be an exception to this cardinal principle. In taking this decision, the Government is conscious that there are some opposed, both to the economic recovery of Sri Lanka from the conflict as well as to the further strengthening of national amity. These extremist elements are bound to claim the decision to stop the GSP+ with effect from 15th August 2010, as an endorsement of their cause. The gist of the Government’s considered view is that the conditions imposed by the European Commission, under the guise of what is essentially a trade agreement, amount to an intervention, the range and depth of which inevitably erodes in every significant respects, the authority of the Government of Sri Lanka to decide upon, and to deal with, a variety of sensitive domestic issues which have a vital bearing on the well being of our nation.
Sri Lanka appreciates the benefits that were received for a certain period while the GSP+ concession was in operation. At the same time, as His Excellency the President of Sri Lanka observed in his Address to the Nation on the 18th of June 2010, “We are not ready to accept aid under conditions that will betray the freedom of our land and people”. The Government is confident that the people of Sri Lanka who faced the challenge of terrorism, will also face and overcome equally successfully the challenges of ensuring economic progress and development. The Government will remain steadfast in prudently pursuing the path of restoring normalcy and of achieving rapid economic development, parallel to the progressive elimination of the threats of de-stabilization.
Ministry of External Affairs
Colombo
24 June 2010