Pillay concerned that Sri Lanka is becoming more authoritarian

SATURDAY, 31 AUGUST 2013 13:32

UN human rights chief Navi Pillay warned on Saturday that Sri Lanka was becoming "increasingly authoritarian" with rights activists apparently suffering growing harassment from security agencies.

"I am deeply concerned that Sri Lanka... is showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction," Pillay told reporters at the end of a week-long visit to probe war crimes in the country.

Addressing a press conference at the UN headquarters in Colombo, the visiting rights chief said she was extremely moved by the profound trauma she saw among the relatives of the missing and the dead, the war survivors, in all the places she visited, as well as by their resilience.

She said was concerned to hear about the degree to which the military appears to be putting down roots and becoming involved in what should be civilian activities. Although she was critical in her statement, she also acknowledged that reconstruction achievements in the North and East were indeed impressive.

On a personal note, she decried efforts to describe her as a tool of the LTTE on the basis of her Indian Tamil heritage. She said those in the diaspora who continue to revere the memory of the LTTE must recognise that there should be no place for the glorification of such a ruthless organisation. The full text of her statement follows;

As is customary at the end of official missions such as this, I would like to make some observations concerning the human rights situation in the country.

During my seven-day visit, I have held discussions with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, and senior members of the Government. These included the Ministers of External Affairs, Justice, Economic Development, National Languages and Social Integration, Youth Affairs and the Minister of Plantations Industries who is also Special Envoy to the President on Human Rights, as well as the Secretary of Defence. I also met the Chief Justice, Attorney-General, Leader of the House of Parliament and the Permanent Secretary to the President, who is head of the taskforce appointed to monitor the implementation of the report of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

I had discussions with politicians who are not part of the current Government, namely the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Tamil National Alliance; in addition I met with the National Human Rights Commission, and a total of eight different gatherings of human rights defenders and civil society organizations in Colombo, Jaffna and Trincomalee. I also received briefings from the Governors and other senior officials in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.

I thank the Government for its invitation and its excellent cooperation during the planning and conduct of this very complex mission. It stated that I could go anywhere, and see anything I wished to see. And, despite some disturbing incidents which I will go into later, that commitment was honoured throughout.

Even though this is the longest official visit I have ever made to a single country, I am acutely conscious that I was unable to see everyone who requested a meeting. Nor will I be able to do justice to all the human rights issues facing the Sri Lankan people and government. Since I will be providing an oral update to the Human Rights Council in Geneva in late September, and a full written report in March next year, I will today confine myself to a few key issues that crystallized during the course of the mission.

I will divide these human rights issues into two parts: those related to the vicious and debilitating 27-year conflict between the Government and the LTTE, and its aftermath; and those that relate to the whole country.2

Some media, ministers, bloggers and various propagandists in Sri Lanka have, for several years now, on the basis of my Indian Tamil heritage, described me as a tool of the LTTE. They have claimed I was in their pay, the "Tamil Tigress in the UN." This is not only wildly incorrect, it is deeply offensive. This type of abuse has reached an extraordinary crescendo during this past week, with at least three Government Ministers joining in.

Firstly, let me say, I am a South African and proud of it.

Secondly, the LTTE was a murderous organization that committed numerous crimes and destroyed many lives. In fact, my only previous visit to Sri Lanka was to attend a commemoration of the celebrated legislator, peacemaker and scholar, Neelan Tiruchelvam, who was killed by an LTTE suicide bomb in July 1999. Those in the diaspora who continue to revere the memory of the LTTE must recognize that there should be no place for the glorification of such a ruthless organization.

I would like to pay my respects to all Sri Lankans, across the country, who were killed during those three decades of conflict, and offer my heartfelt sympathy to their families, all of whom no matter who they are share one thing: they have lost someone they can never replace. I have met many people during this visit whose relatives or spouses both civilians and soldiers are known to have been killed, or who are missing and may well be dead.

It is important everyone realizes that, although the fighting is over, the suffering is not.

I have been extremely moved by the profound trauma I have seen among the relatives of the missing and the dead, and the war survivors, in all the places I have visited, as well as by their resilience. This was particularly evident among those scratching out a living among the ghosts of burned and shelled trees, ruined houses and other debris of the final battle of the the war along the lagoon in Mullaitivu.

Wounds will not heal and reconciliation will not happen, without respect for those who grieve, and remembrance for the tens of thousands of Tamils, Sinhalese, Muslims and others who died before their time on the battlefield, in buses, on the street, or in detention. As one wife of a missing man put it poignantly: "Even when we eat, we keep a portion for him."

Throughout my visit, the authorities, at all levels, have been keen to demonstrate to me how much has been achieved in terms of resettlement, reconstruction and rehabilitation in the relatively short period since the conflict with the LTTE ended in 2009. And the reconstruction achievements, made with the help of donor countries, UN agencies and NGOs, are indeed impressive: in both the Eastern and Northern Provinces, large numbers of new roads, bridges, houses, medical facilities and schools have been built or rebuilt; electricity and water supplies have been greatly improved; and most of the landmines have been removed. As a result, the great majority of the more than 450,000 people who were internally displaced at the end of the conflict have now gone home.

These are important achievements, and I understand the Governments concern that they have perhaps not been sufficiently recognized. However, physical reconstruction alone will not bring reconciliation, dignity, or lasting peace. Clearly, a more holistic approach is needed to provide truth, justice and reparations for peoples suffering during the war, and I have repeated my previous offer of OHCHRs assistance in these areas.3

There are a number of specific factors impeding normalization, which if not quickly rectified may sow the seeds of future discord. These are by and large to do with the curtailment or denial of personal freedoms and human rights, or linked to persistent impunity and the failure of rule of law.

From the very beginning, I have placed great hopes in Sri Lanka achieving true peace and reconciliation after the war. I welcomed the LLRC report as an important step in that direction, even though it side-stepped the much-needed full, transparent, impartial investigation into the conduct of a conflict that saw numerous war crimes and other violations committed by both sides. The Human Rights Council has expressed a strong interest in seeing progress in the implementation of the most important LLRC recommendations, and proper investigation of the many outstanding allegations and concerns.

The LLRC report contains a broad range of excellent recommendations regarding concrete improvements on human rights, and I was interested to receive a briefing on the extent of the implementation of some of those recommendations from the Permanent Secretary to the President. My Office will closely examine that update and future developments in the implementation of the LLRC, and I will of course make reference to any genuine progress in my reports to the Human Rights Council.

I will now briefly outline some of the other issues that were raised during my visits to the Northern and Eastern Provinces, and which I have in turn raised with various ministers.

I welcome the forthcoming elections to the Northern Provincial Council and hope they will proceed in a peaceful, free and fair environment, and usher in an important new stage in the devolution of power.

I was concerned to hear about the degree to which the military appears to be putting down roots and becoming involved in what should be civilian activities, for instance education, agriculture and even tourism. I also heard complaints about the acquisition of private land to build military camps and installations, including a holiday resort. This is only going to make the complex land issues with which the Government has been grappling even more complicated and difficult to resolve. Clearly, the army needs some camps, but the prevalence and level of involvement of soldiers in the community seem much greater than is needed for strictly military or reconstruction purposes four years after the end of the war.

I understand the Secretary of Defences point that the demobilization of a significant proportion of such a large army cannot be done overnight, but urge the government to speed up its efforts to demilitarize these two war-affected provinces, as the continued large-scale presence of the military and other security forces is seen by many as oppressive and intrusive, with the continuing high level of surveillance of former combatants and returnees at times verging on harassment.

I was very concerned to hear about the vulnerability of women and girls, especially in female-headed households, to sexual harassment and abuse. I have raised this issue with several ministers, the provincial governors and senior military commanders who attended my meeting with the Secretary of Defence. I challenged them to rigorously enforce a zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse. 4

I have also been following up on the status of the remaining detainees and have urged the Government to expedite their cases, either by bringing charges or releasing them for rehabilitation. I also suggested it may now be time to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has long been cause for concern.

Because of the legacy of massive trauma, there is a desperate need for counseling and psychosocial support in the North, and I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the authorities have restricted NGO activity in this sector. I hope the Government can relax controls on this type of assistance.

I met many relatives of missing or disappeared civilians and soldiers who are still hoping to discover the whereabouts of their loved ones, and they emphasized the urgent need to resolve this issue something that was made abundantly evident at the two very moving meetings with relatives of the disappeared that I attended yesterday, to commemorate the International Day of the Victims of Forced Disappearances.

I asked the Government for more information about the new Commission of Inquiry on Disappearances, and stressed the need for it to be more effective than the five previous commissions of this kind. I was disappointed to learn that it will only cover disappearances in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, which means that the many "white van" disappearances reported in Colombo and other parts of the country in recent years will not fall within its scope.

I urge the Government to broaden the Commissions mandate, and seize this opportunity to make a comprehensive effort to resolve the disappearances issue once and for all. I therefore welcome the new proposal to criminalize disappearances in the penal code, and hope this will be done without delay. The Government could also send a clear signal of its commitment by ratifying the International Convention on Disappearances, and by inviting the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances to visit Sri Lanka, ideally before I report back to the Human Rights Council in March.

The Human Rights Council will also be looking to see something credible in terms of investigation of what happened at the end of the war and many other past cases.

I was pleased to learn that the case of the five students murdered on the beach in Trincomalee in 2006 has been reinvigorated by the arrest of 12 Police Special Task Force members known to have been in the vicinity at the time of the killings. I will be watching the progress of that case with interest, as well as the other infamous unsolved case of 17 ACF aid workers murdered in the same year, just a few kilometres to the south.

I also requested more information about the Courts of Inquiry appointed by the army to further investigate the allegations of civilian casualties and summary executions, and suggested that appointing the army to investigate itself does not inspire confidence in a country where so many past investigations and commissions of inquiry have foundered one way or another. Unless there is a credible national process, calls for an international inquiry are likely to continue.

The recent deployment of the military in support of police to control a demonstration in Welawariya, which resulted in at least three deaths, has sent a shockwave through the community. I stressed to the Defence Secretary the need to urgently complete and publish a 5

proper investigation into this incident.

Too many other investigation files remain pending, for instance the custodial deaths of prisoners in Vavuniya and Welikada Prisons in 2012. The Government has since announced police powers will now be transferred from the Ministry of Defence to a new Ministry of Law and Order, but this is at best a partial separation as both Ministries will remain under the President, rather than under a separate civilian ministry.

I have also reminded the Government that Sri Lanka desperately needs strong witness and victim protection legislation, which has been languishing in draft form since 2007.

I expressed concern at the recent surge in incitement of hatred and violence against religious minorities, including attacks on churches and mosques, and the lack of swift action against the perpetrators. I was surprised that the Government seemed to downplay this issue, and I hope it will send the strongest possible signal of zero tolerance for such acts and ensure that those responsible (who are easily identifiable on video footage) are punished. The Minister of National Languages and Social Integration told me that he has proposed new legislation on hate speech. We have recently concluded a study of such laws and would be happy to assist in this area. The same Minister, along with the Minister of Justice, expressed to me his

support for a visit by the Independent Expert on Minorities, and I hope this can happen as soon as possible. I also applaud the Governments policy of introducing tri-lingualism all across the country.

I would now like to turn to a disturbing aspect of the visit, namely the harassment and intimidation of a number of human rights defenders, at least two priests, journalists, and many ordinary citizens who met with me, or planned to meet with me. I have received reports that people in villages and settlements in the Mullaitivu area were visited by police or military officers both before and after I arrived there. In Trincomalee, several people I met were subsequently questioned about the content of our conversation.

This type of surveillance and harassment appears to be getting worse in Sri Lanka, which is a country where critical voices are quite often attacked or even permanently silenced. Utterly unacceptable at any time, it is particularly extraordinary for such treatment to be meted out during a visit by a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I wish to stress that the United Nations takes the issue of reprisals against people because they have talked to UN officials as an extremely serious matter, and I will be reporting those that take place in connection with this visit to the Human Rights Council.

I urge the Government of Sri Lanka to issue immediate orders to halt this treatment of human rights defenders and journalists who face this kind of harassment and intimidation on a regular basis. More than 30 journalists are believed to have been killed since 2005, and several more including the cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda have disappeared. Many others have fled the country. Newspaper and TV offices have been vandalized or subjected to arson attacks some, such as the Jaffna-based paper Uthayan, on multiple occasions. With self-censorship fuelled by fear, journalists report that there are articles that they dare not write, and others their editors dare not print. Freedom of expression is under a sustained assault in Sri Lanka. I have called for the right to Information Act to be adopted like many of its neighbours in SAARC.

The war may have ended, but in the meantime democracy has been undermined and the rule of law eroded. The 18

th amendment, which abolished the Constitutional Council which once 6 recommended appointments to the independent bodies, such as the Elections Commission and Human Rights Commission, has weakened these important checks and balances on the power of the Executive. The controversial impeachment of the Chief Justice earlier this year, and apparent politicization of senior judicial appointments, have shaken confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

I am deeply concerned that Sri Lanka, despite the opportunity provided by the end of the war to construct a new vibrant, allembracing state, is showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction.

Ending on a more optimistic note, yesterday, at the Governments suggestion, I

visited the Youth Parliament. This unusual institution, founded in 2010, is filled with bright, enthusiastic students from all across the country, and dedicated to a tolerant and all-inclusive approach. The parliament draws on elected members of

youth groups who meet once a month to discuss key issues such as the importance of Amendment 13 to the Constitution and the LLRC (indeed they claim they actually debated the latter before the National Parliament).

I hope that the current and future members of the Youth Parliament, three of whom delivered excellent speeches in my presence, will, when they graduate to the main political stage, usher in a new era of tolerant coexistence in this beautiful island, where despite the problems I have listed above I have been greeted with great warmth and hospitality.

Full speech by Navi Pillay at Colombo media briefing

SATURDAY, 31 AUGUST 2013 17:27

Opening remarks by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay at a press conference during her mission to Sri Lanka Colombo, 31 August 2013 Good morning, and thank you for coming.

As is customary at the end of official missions such as this, I would like to make some observations concerning the human rights situation in the country.

During my seven-day visit, I have held discussions with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, and senior members of the Government. These included the Ministers of External Affairs, Justice, Economic Development, National Languages and Social Integration, Youth Affairs and the Minister of Plantations Industries who is also Special Envoy to the President on Human Rights, as well as the Secretary of Defence. I also met the Chief Justice, Attorney-General, Leader of the House of Parliament and the Permanent Secretary to the President, who is head of the taskforce appointed to monitor the implementation of the report of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). I had discussions with politicians who are not part of the current Government, namely the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Tamil National Alliance; in addition I met with the National Human Rights Commission, and a total of eight different gatherings of human rights defenders and civil society organizations in Colombo, Jaffna and Trincomalee. I also received briefings from the Governors and other senior officials in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.

I thank the Government for its invitation and its excellent cooperation during the planning and conduct of this very complex mission. It stated that I could go anywhere, and see anything I wished to see. And, despite some disturbing incidents which I will go into later, that commitment was honoured throughout.

Even though this is the longest official visit I have ever made to a single country, I am acutely conscious that I was unable to see everyone who requested a meeting. Nor will I be able to do justice to all the human rights issues facing the Sri Lankan people and government. Since I will be providing an oral update to the Human Rights Council in Geneva in late September, and a full written report in March next year, I will today confine myself to a few key issues that crystallized during the course of the mission.

I will divide these human rights issues into two parts: those related to the vicious and debilitating 27-year conflict between the Government and the LTTE, and its aftermath; and those that relate to the whole country.

Some media, ministers, bloggers and various propagandists in Sri Lanka have, for several years now, on the basis of my Indian Tamil heritage, described me as a tool of the LTTE. They have claimed I was in their pay, the Tamil Tigress in the UN. This is not only wildly incorrect, it is deeply offensive. This type of abuse has reached an extraordinary crescendo during this past week, with at least three Government Ministers joining in.

Firstly, let me say, I am a South African and proud of it.

Secondly, the LTTE was a murderous organization that committed numerous crimes and destroyed many lives. In fact, my only previous visit to Sri Lanka was to attend a commemoration of the celebrated legislator, peacemaker and scholar, Neelan Tiruchelvam, who was killed by an LTTE suicide bomb in July 1999. Those in the diaspora who continue to revere the memory of the LTTE must recognize that there should be no place for the glorification of such a ruthless organization.

I would like to pay my respects to all Sri Lankans, across the country, who were killed during those three decades of conflict, and offer my heartfelt sympathy to their families, all of whom no matter who they are share one thing: they have lost someone they can never replace. I have met many people during this visit whose relatives or spouses both civilians and soldiers are known to have been killed, or who are missing and may well be dead.

It is important everyone realizes that, although the fighting is over, the suffering is not.

I have been extremely moved by the profound trauma I have seen among the relatives of the missing and the dead, and the war survivors, in all the places I have visited, as well as by their resilience. This was particularly evident among those scratching out a living among the ghosts of burned and shelled trees, ruined houses and other debris of the final battle of the the war along the lagoon in Mullaitivu.

Wounds will not heal and reconciliation will not happen, without respect for those who grieve, and remembrance for the tens of thousands of Tamils, Sinhalese, Muslims and others who died before their time on the battlefield, in buses, on the street, or in detention. As one wife of a missing man put it poignantly: Even when we eat, we keep a portion for him.

Throughout my visit, the authorities, at all levels, have been keen to demonstrate to me how much has been achieved in terms of resettlement, reconstruction and rehabilitation in the relatively short period since the conflict with the LTTE ended in 2009. And the reconstruction achievements, made with the help of donor countries, UN agencies and NGOs, are indeed impressive: in both the Eastern and Northern Provinces, large numbers of new roads, bridges, houses, medical facilities and schools have been built or rebuilt; electricity and water supplies have been greatly improved; and most of the landmines have been removed. As a result, the great majority of the more than 450,000 people who were internally displaced at the end of the conflict have now gone home.

These are important achievements, and I understand the Governments concern that they have perhaps not been sufficiently recognized. However, physical reconstruction alone will not bring reconciliation, dignity, or lasting peace. Clearly, a more holistic approach is needed to provide truth, justice and reparations for peoples suffering during the war, and I have repeated my previous offer of OHCHRs assistance in these areas.

There are a number of specific factors impeding normalization, which if not quickly rectified may sow the seeds of future discord. These are by and large to do with the curtailment or denial of personal freedoms and human rights, or linked to persistent impunity and the failure of rule of law.

From the very beginning, I have placed great hopes in Sri Lanka achieving true peace and reconciliation after the war. I welcomed the LLRC report as an important step in that direction, even though it side-stepped the much-needed full, transparent, impartial investigation into the conduct of a conflict that saw numerous war crimes and other violations committed by both sides. The Human Rights Council has expressed a strong interest in seeing progress in the implementation of the most important LLRC recommendations, and proper investigation of the many outstanding allegations and concerns.

The LLRC report contains a broad range of excellent recommendations regarding concrete improvements on human rights, and I was interested to receive a briefing on the extent of the implementation of some of those recommendations from the Permanent Secretary to the President. My Office will closely examine that update and future developments in the implementation of the LLRC, and I will of course make reference to any genuine progress in my reports to the Human Rights Council.

I will now briefly outline some of the other issues that were raised during my visits to the Northern and Eastern Provinces, and which I have in turn raised with various ministers.

I welcome the forthcoming elections to the Northern Provincial Council and hope they will proceed in a peaceful, free and fair environment, and usher in an important new stage in the devolution of power.

I was concerned to hear about the degree to which the military appears to be putting down roots and becoming involved in what should be civilian activities, for instance education, agriculture and even tourism. I also heard complaints about the acquisition of private land to build military camps and installations, including a holiday resort. This is only going to make the complex land issues with which the Government has been grappling even more complicated and difficult to resolve. Clearly, the army needs some camps, but the prevalence and level of involvement of soldiers in the community seem much greater than is needed for strictly military or reconstruction purposes four years after the end of the war.

I understand the Secretary of Defences point that the demobilization of a significant proportion of such a large army cannot be done overnight, but urge the government to speed up its efforts to demilitarize these two war-affected provinces, as the continued large-scale presence of the military and other security forces is seen by many as oppressive and intrusive, with the continuing high level of surveillance of former combatants and returnees at times verging on harassment.

I was very concerned to hear about the vulnerability of women and girls, especially in female-headed households, to sexual harassment and abuse. I have raised this issue with several ministers, the provincial governors and senior military commanders who attended my meeting with the Secretary of Defence. I challenged them to rigorously enforce a zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse.

I have also been following up on the status of the remaining detainees and have urged the Government to expedite their cases, either by bringing charges or releasing them for rehabilitation. I also suggested it may now be time to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has long been cause for concern.

Because of the legacy of massive trauma, there is a desperate need for counseling and psychosocial support in the North, and I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the authorities have restricted NGO activity in this sector. I hope the Government can relax controls on this type of assistance.

I met many relatives of missing or disappeared civilians and soldiers who are still hoping to discover the whereabouts of their loved ones, and they emphasized the urgent need to resolve this issue something that was made abundantly evident at the two very moving meetings with relatives of the disappeared that I attended yesterday, to commemorate the International Day of the Victims of Forced Disappearances.

I asked the Government for more information about the new Commission of Inquiry on Disappearances, and stressed the need for it to be more effective than the five previous commissions of this kind. I was disappointed to learn that it will only cover disappearances in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, which means that the many white van disappearances reported in Colombo and other parts of the country in recent years will not fall within its scope.

I urge the Government to broaden the Commissions mandate, and seize this opportunity to mak e a comprehensive effort to resolve the disappearances issue once and for all. I therefore welcome the new proposal to criminalize disappearances in the penal code, and hope this will be done without delay. The Government could also send a clear signal of its commitment by ratifying the International Convention on Disappearances, and by inviting the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances to visit Sri Lanka, ideally before I report back to the Human Rights Council in March.

The Human Rights Council will also be looking to see something credible in terms of investigation of what happened at the end of the war and many other past cases.

I was pleased to learn that the case of the five students murdered on the beach in Trincomalee in 2006 has been reinvigorated by the arrest of 12 Police Special Task Force members known to have been in the vicinity at the time of the killings. I will be watching the progress of that case with interest, as well as the other infamous unsolved case of 17 ACF aid workers murdered in the same year, just a few kilometres to the south.

I also requested more information about the Courts of Inquiry appointed by the army to further investigate the allegations of civilian casualties and summary executions, and suggested that appointing the army to investigate itself does not inspire confidence in a country where so many past investigations and commissions of inquiry have foundered one way or another. Unless there is a credible national process, calls for an international inquiry are likely to continue.

The recent deployment of the military in support of police to control a demonstration in Weliweriya, which resulted in at least three deaths, has sent a shockwave through the community. I stressed to the Defence Secretary the need to urgently complete and publish a proper investigation into this incident.

Too many other investigation files remain pending, for instance the custodial deaths of prisoners in Vavuniya and Welikada Prisons in 2012. The Government has since announced police powers will now be transferred from the Ministry of Defence to a new Ministry of Law and Order, but this is at best a partial separation as both Ministries will remain under the President, rather than under a separate civilian ministry.

I have also reminded the Government that Sri Lanka desperately needs strong witness and victim protection legislation, which has been languishing in draft form since 2007.

I expressed concern at the recent surge in incitement of hatred and violence against religious minorities, including attacks on churches and mosques, and the lack of swift action against the perpetrators. I was surprised that the Government seemed to downplay this issue, and I hope it will send the strongest possible signal of zero tolerance for such acts and ensure that those responsible (who are easily identifiable on video footage) are punished. The Minister of National Languages and Social Integration told me that he has proposed new legislation on hate speech. We have recently concluded a study of such laws and would be happy to assist in this area. The same Minister, along with the Minister of Justice, expressed to me his support for a visit by the Independent Expert on Minorities, and I hope this can happen as soon as possible. I also applaud the Governments policy of introducing tri -lingualism all across the country.

I would now like to turn to a disturbing aspect of the visit, namely the harassment and intimidation of a number of human rights defenders, at least two priests, journalists, and many ordinary citizens who met with me, or planned to meet with me. I have received reports that people in villages and settlements in the Mullaitivu area were visited by police or military officers both before and after I arrived there. In Trincomalee, several people I met were subsequently questioned about the content of our conversation.

This type of surveillance and harassment appears to be getting worse in Sri Lanka, which is a country where critical voices are quite often attacked or even permanently silenced. Utterly unacceptable at any time, it is particularly extraordinary for such treatment to be meted out during a visit by a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I wish to stress that the United Nations takes the issue of reprisals against people because they have talked to UN officials as an extremely serious matter, and I will be reporting those that take place in connection with this visit to the Human Rights Council.

I urge the Government of Sri Lanka to issue immediate orders to halt this treatment of human rights defenders and journalists who face this kind of harassment and intimidation on a regular basis. More than 30 journalists are believed to have been killed since 2005, and several more including the cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda have disappeared. Many others have fled the country. Newspaper and TV offices have been vandalized or subjected to arson attacks some, such

as the Jaffna-based paper Uthayan, on multiple occasions. With self-censorship fuelled by fear, journalists report that there are articles that they dare not write, and others their editors dare not print. Freedom of expression is under a sustained assault in Sri Lanka. I have called for the right to Information Act to be adopted like many of its neighbours in SAARC.

The war may have ended, but in the meantime democracy has been undermined and the rule of law eroded. The 18th amendment, which abolished the Constitutional Council which once recommended appointments to the independent bodies, such as the Elections Commission and Human Rights Commission, has weakened these important checks and balances on the power of the Executive. The controversial impeachment of the Chief Justice earlier this year, and apparent politicization of senior judicial appointments, have shaken confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

I am deeply concerned that Sri Lanka, despite the opportunity provided by the end of the war to construct a new vibrant, allembracing state, is showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction.

Ending on a more optimistic note, yesterday, at the Governments suggestion, I visited the Youth Parliament. This unusual institution, founded in 2010, is filled with bright, enthusiastic students from all across the country, and dedicated to a tolerant and all-inclusive approach. The parliament draws on elected members of youth groups who meet once a month to discuss key issues such as the importance of Amendment 13 to the Constitution and the LLRC (indeed they claim they actually debated the latter before the National Parliament).

I hope that the current and future members of the Youth Parliament, three of whom delivered excellent speeches in my presence, will, when they graduate to the main political stage, usher in a new era of tolerant coexistence in this beautiful island, where despite the problems I have listed above I have been greeted with great warmth and hospitality.

Thank you.

Editorial
Dealing with the worlds dictator
View(s): 282

The situation in Syria has brought the world once again to the brink of war. The United States, the self-appointed world policeman, says it has credible evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people in what whoever did it was a despicable act and indeed a crime against humanity.

Two factors, however, throw a big question mark over the claim by the US; one is historical i.e. the same country hoodwinked the whole world into believing that Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and used that as an excuse for a military invasion of that country and to engineer a regime change. Secondly, much of this irrefutable evidence that the US says it has seems to have come from the Israelis, who are sworn enemies of Syria. No doubt, President Barrack Obama is mindful of the baloney intelligence that his predecessor was given on Iraq or his predecessor wanted an excuse anyway to invade Iraq and has therefore set the bar much higher for credible evidence, but members of his administration have gone on record saying they will strike Syria militarily with or without UN approval. Such is the respect some of the hawks in the Obama administration have for the United Nations when they want to flex their muscle. The Syrian Government is saying show the proof you have and denying the allegations that it was guilty of using these chemical weapons. One would think that the US, committed as it says it is to eradicating crimes against humanity, notwithstanding its continuing drone attacks over Pakistan, would have produced that evidence and shared it with the rest of the world to prove its case. That is why the British Parliament pulled back its Prime Minister who tried to emulate his predecessor and join the US in going to war. The British seem to have learnt the bitter lesson of blindly following the US and going to war in Iraq. Exercising caution over military strikes sans UN approval, pro-Western Alliance countries like Italy have expressed unwillingness to join any coalition of the willing the US is keen on cobbling together for a strike against Syria. Any unilateral move by the US is going to upset the big-power apple cart with Russia clearly opposed to any strikes against Syria without the UN inspectors report on the use of chemical weapons in Syrias prolonged insurgency. It was Russia which persuaded the Syrian regime to allow the inspectors in and they have been bitten more than once by the US bulldozing its way through, first in Iraq and then by getting the UN to pass a resolution to protect civilians in Libya. That matured into a regime change and the murder of Libyan Leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi. The virtual unilateral action contemplated by the US betrays the way it operates in world affairs and its respect for International Law. When the UN Secretary General says give peace a chance in Syria, the US refers to the failure of diplomacy in the face of purported crimes against humanity. It is impatient with the UN system, but will use its mechanism only when it suits it as in the case of the resolution it moved against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on the basis of which, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was in this country this whole week on a fact-finding mission. The other fact is the US willingness to steam-roll over the other big-powers, notably Russia and China when it wants to. This might serve as a lesson to the Sri Lankan political leadership that the US will do exactly what it wants to. The US is not just the worlds policeman, but the worlds dictator. The Navi Pillay Show The events in Sri Lanka in the last days of the military onslaught against the LTTE, a declared terrorist organisation a matter now under scrutiny by the UN Human Rights Council must surely pale into insignificance when compared with the horrific accounts of the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian population, by whomsoever.

The UN High Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay, however, in a response to an email question by the Sunday Times on Syria, refused to be drawn in merely saying, For the time being, we leave that issue with the UN Secretary General. One has no doubt, to wait with bated breath as it were, for her oral submissions on Sri Lanka at the September sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and then her final report next March. Her lengthy statement read out at the news conference in Colombo yesterday gives but a hint of her first impressions as it were. Those who met the lady seem to feel that she had read her brief as a good lawyer should and was possessed of the facts. But her statement showed she was only human and susceptible to taunting, which was unbecoming no doubt, but seems to have rattled her. Hopefully, that will not affect her judgement. She seemed concerned about religious intolerance in the country, but surprisingly asked the President why the Buddhist flag flies at Independence Square. Surely, she wouldnt dare ask the Queen of England why she is the Defender of the Faith and the head of the Church of England or from President Obama why their dollar bill has the words IN GOD WE TRUST. Her parting shot might give a hint of what is to come from her in Geneva. She said she was deeply concerned that Sri Lanka, despite the opportunity provided by the end of the war to construct a vibrant, all-embracing state, is showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction. She was equally critical of the Diaspora that supports the ruthless LTTE. One hasnt heard the last of her for sure.

5th Column
Fair Pillay?
View(s): 421

My Dear Navi, I thought I too must write to you now that you are finally here after years of speculation and everybody who is somebody wants to meet you or write to you and tell you what they think you should do-or shouldnt do-for our little country.

Im told, Navi, that despite all the hullabaloo surrounding your visit, they have allowed you to go wherever you want and do whatever you want. I am sure that is not what you expected but it does show that contrary to popular belief, there is some democracy left in our country.

It is a pity though that you are here only for a week doing only official work-and you just missed the Perahera too. If you were here for a few days more, we could have at least taken you to Sigiriya and you could have then said that you have seen more of Sri Lanka than our very patriotic Wimal! Navi, you need to understand where all this opposition to your visit comes from. As you must have realised by now, we are generally a very hospitable people and we bend over backwards to please a foreigner. So, there are good reasons why many people do not want you interfering with our country. The way the war ended may not have been ideal. Nevertheless, because of that, we are now living in peace and without fear, not having to worry if those who leave for work in the morning would return home in the evening-unless, of course, if they happen to live in the Rathupaswela area. You and the UN talk of war crimes and human rights abuses now, Navi, but where were you and the UN when our country was bleeding every day, bombs were exploding in every street corner and there were massacres of innocent civilians on a regular basis? While this happened for nearly thirty years, Navi, all we heard was the odd statement from the UN and a few countries condemning the Tigers and calling for a negotiated settlement. Even getting the Tigers listed as a terrorist organisation was a struggle and happened only after Kadirs efforts. During those thirty years, Navi, where were the UN and the US, which is now bringing resolution after resolution against us? Why wasnt Channel 4 making any documentaries? Why didnt the UN appoint a panel of experts? And why didnt anyone visit us to find out about human rights abuses? Now that the war is over and we are living in relative peace-with the occasional shooting of civilians, the impeachment of a Chief Justice every now and then, I must admit-everyone is descending upon us and wanting to know about our human rights. Odd, dont you think, Navi?

Then Navi, we are faced with obvious double standards both locally and internationally. Locally, all the questions are about what our troops did, disregarding the fact that they were fighting the most ruthless terrorist outfit in the world. No- one dares to ask whether the Tigers abused human rights! Internationally, we see America using drones to kill civilians in Pakistan under the guise of fighting the Taliban but again, Channel 4 is not making documentaries about it, Ban Ki-moon is not appointing panels of experts to look into it and you are not visiting those areas either! Then, Iraq was invaded because they had weapons of mass destruction. Nothing was ever found, thousands of civilians died in that war and that country is still bleeding but George Bush and Tony Blair are happily enjoying their retirement because no one dares to try them for war crimes! We do know that you are not a US stooge and that the US in fact prevented you from having a full second term of office, Navi, but even you seem to be powerless and doing only what the powerful countries of the west want you to do. And that is why some people dont want you here. It doesnt help when, in the past you have been known to be quite eager to criticise Sri Lanka at the drop of a hat, for example when the Channel 4 documentary was released, without even verifying whether what it said was true. Then, last week you were asking us why our Police could not be under the Ministry of Justice. Navi, can you imagine asking that question in America, England or even in India? If you did, you would have been shown the door immediately. Little wonder then, that some people dont want you here! We heard you say that you are here not to criticise and that you have an open mind. Given your past record and who you work for, few people here will be impressed with that. Expecting

you to give us a favourable report is like expecting Lasith Malinga to play for his country rather than the IPL! Never mind, Navi, enjoy your stay. You may see a demonstration or two against you but Im sure you can handle that. And while you are here, you might have a thing or two to say to Mahinda maama but could you also ask the Green Man what on earth he plans to do except lose election after election? Yours truly, Punchi Putha PS-I heard that Mervyn has proposed marriage to you. Now, Navi many people dont like you in this part of the world but even your worst enemies wouldnt wish that kind of fate upon you.

Columns
Govt. caught in Hurricane Pillay as she ends whirlwind tour
By Our Political Editor

View(s): 1477

Mervyns remarks draw angry retort from UN Human Rights chief; President livid over EAMs mishandling of crucial visit UNP presents tough report; wants 19A to nullify 18A; focus now on what happens in Geneva this month
It was Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, the UPFA Governments point man for many issu es who hosted the cocktail reception on Thursday night for a select crowd of politicians, diplomats and officials at the Colombo Hilton. That was in honour of Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He took it upon himself to protect the honour and integrity of the cabinet of ministers. Surrounded by a few guests, de Silva told Pillay, Madam, Dont take ou r Minister Mervyn Silvas remarks seriously. She was quick on the draw and responded, It is not I who should take it seriously. It is you. She looked angry and her characteristic smile was absent as she retorted.

If de Silva took a few seconds to recover, others present watched helplessly. They included Ministers D.E.W. Gunasekera, Douglas Devananda, Rauff Hakeem, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, External Affairs Ministry Additional Secretary Kshenuka Seneviratne, Colombo University Vice Chancellor Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama, and Parliamentarian J. Sri Ranga. Minister de Silva was alluding to a front-page news report in our sister newspaper Daily Mirror about remarks by his colleague Mervyn Silva, Minister of Public Relations and Public Affairs. Mervyn remarked he was willing to marry Pillay. I urge her to join m e in a trip around the country. I would teach her the history of Sri Lanka. I would tell her about Maha Ravana, he had said. That a member of President Mahinda Rajapaksas cabinet of ministers had proposed marriage to her publicly, an unusual one when he had not even set eyes on Pillay had naturally angered her. It came from the Minister tasked with the portfolio of Public Relations at that. Making a marriage proposal to a visiting senior United Nations diplomat had been the talking point among ministers this week. So much so, some complained that Silva was being allowed to get away with whatever he did no matter even if it made them look like fools in the eyes of the world. That ministers in Sri Lanka were trying to make wives out of official visitors, they said, also placed the country in bad light. Hence, Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, who

is now a trouble shooter, took upon the task to clear the air. The one-liner rapid response from Pillay, it seemed, was a message not only to Minister de Silva, the messenger, but the entire cabinet of ministers. Pillay wants them to take seriously the implications of Minister Mervyn Silvas clownish marriage proposal. In her statement issued yesterday prior to her departure, Pillay referred to three Government ministers joining in what she called the wildly incorrect and deeply offensive accusations when she was in the country, that she was an LTTE sympathiser. An accomplished lawyer, Pillay, the daughter of a bus driver, was the first South African to obtain a doctorate in law from the Harvard Law School. She won the right for political prisoners on Robben Island including Nelson Mandela, to have access to lawyers. After the African National Congress came to power, Mandela nominated Pillay as the first non-white woman to serve the High Court of South Africa. She served the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for eight years, half the period as its President, before quitting and joining the UN. Other than that, Minister Mervyn Silva was also in trouble. On Friday, he was to have a meeting at the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery Corruption. Due to the intervention of a VVIP, he has now won time for three months. The Commission wants him to explain the sources of income from which he reportedly acquired, among others, vehicles, buildings and other property. Only weeks earlier, he had offended the UPFA leadership. One was over biting criticism against them on the incidents at Weliveriya. Another was reports that he had a meeting with Venerable Maduluwawe Sobhita Thera, Chief Incumbent of the Kotte Naga Viharaya and Convenor of the National Movement for Social Justice. When queried, he is reported to have replied that he went there for religious reasons. However, other reports said Silva had during a meeting faulted the opposition, particularly United National Party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, for reportedly not being able to deal with the Government effectively. Both as Minister and as Leader of the House, Nimala Siripala de Silva has been the UPFA Governments point man. Issues for hi m range from peace talks at one time and chairing nomination boards of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) for this months three provincial polls. He is now chairing a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on matters relating to the 13th Amendment and reconciliation. It was last Wednesday that de Silva told a news conference Pillay could go anywhere in Sri Lanka and obtain first -hand knowledge of the real situation over allegations levelled by enemies of the country. He observed that she could release a good or bad report af ter her study. He was also to remark that Pillay could not give orders and asserted that the Government would not follow them if issued. Pillay and a high ranking official entourage wrapped up a week-long visit to Sri Lanka yesterday. A report on the news conference she addressed after winding up her visit appears elsewhere in this newspaper. Later this month, she will make an oral statement on her findings in Sri Lanka to the 24th sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The event will be held from September 9 to 27. Whilst it is not immediately clear what shape and form her presentation to the UNHRC would take, remarks by a Colombo-based diplomat who spoke on grounds of anonymity gave a sneak preview. Pillay has noted during her interactions in Colombo that there was a major gap in the positions taken by those speaking for the Government and others representing civil society. She is sure to identify the areas where there is forward movement and highlight the areas where there are inadequacies. If one is to go by the current mood, it wont be easy going. She is tough and will speak her mind out, said the diplomat. She is also preparing an 8,500 word report for the UNHRC for their March 2014 sessions. There is little doubt that such a briefing would encompass some of the newer issues like the Army shooting at Weliveriya and the incidents at the mosque in Grandpass. Though a meeting with President Mahinda Rajapaksa had been sought for ten minutes, it extended to twenty. When Pillay walked into Temple Trees, there were a group of schoolchildren on a visit to meet Rajapaksa. One of them asked her from where she was a nd she replied from South Africa. On her way out, President Rajapaksa told Pillay I know you ha ve already written your report; you are only here to validate it, to which Pillay quickly replied No, no, Your Excellency, that is not the case.

Opposition UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe showing UN High Commissioner Dr. Navi Pillay a framed painting of King Wimaladharmasuriya welcoming the visiting Dutch Ambassador to Sri Lanka when she called on him for talks this week at his 5th Lane residence .

Later, a statement from the Presidents Office said, President Rajapaksa told Ms. Pillay there is a beli ef among many Sri Lankans that the United Nations is biased in the way it deals with countries, and he said he urged those who voiced these concerns to him not to prejudge the report Ms. Pillay is due to issue. However, the Sinhala text of the news releas e was different. It said: The people of this country have a belief that the UN is a pessimistic organisation. They believe that her report would include prejudged matters. The President said though his Cabinet included different groups, he was able to lead them to a common goal. Rajapaksa was to find fault with the External Affairs Ministry for what he considered were a string of blunders during the visit of Pillay. He was livid that the EAM, which plays a minimum role in the conduct of the countrys forei gn relations, had lined up the first meeting for Pillay with Justice Minister Rauff Hakeem. Rajapaksa has also spoken to Hakeem criticising him for the way he handled the meeting. He was perhaps unhappy that his Justice Minister did not counter more effect ively Pillays observation that the Police Department should have been under his (Hakeems) Ministry. The subject had come up when there was a discussion over the setting up of the new Law and Order Ministry which is under the President. Peiris had told Rajapaksa that Hakeem should have been more assertive. President Rajapaksa had also felt there was no need for the EAM to have arranged for a meeting with Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, Presidents Special Envoy on Human Rights. Since the External Affairs Mi nister was meeting her, he felt, it was not necessary. His displeasure over this was conveyed to External Affairs Ministry Secretary Karunatilleke Amunugama. When Pillay arrived for her meeting with Peiris, she was taken aback by the number of photographers. She had asked him why there was a large presence of media personnel. Peiris replied that they were his Ministry people and added that as Pillay was due t o hold a news conference before her departure he was going to issue his own statement after their meeting. When they met, Pillay complained to Peiris that she was being vilified in sections of the Sri Lankan media. Peiris replied that was probably how the media viewed her visit. Another cabinet minister, who learnt of these remarks, was to say so mewhat mischievously he should have said that is because the media is free and there is democracy in Sri Lanka. He also should have said even I a m being vilified. That was lost on him. Or maybe he didnt want to admit to that. For the UPFA Government, reputed for blowing hot and cold, the Pillay visit is no exception. After the adoption of the first US backed resolution in Geneva in March 2011, the Government adopted a tough stance. There were strongly worded letters addressed to Pillay. One came in January this year after Chief Justice 43 Shirani Bandaranayake was impeached. Then acting External Affairs Ministry Secretary Kshenuka Seneviratne said your action in resorting to unwarranted comments with a series of innuendos on an is sue which is entirely a domestic matter for Sri Lanka, and that too without first engaging with our Permanent Representative or the delegation of Sri Lanka in Geneva, demonstrates yet again the deviation from established procedure, amounting to blatant interference in

an issue of a sovereign country. A visit to Sri Lanka by Pillay, though listed then, did not materialise. UN officials accused the Government of stonewalling. Local officials said there was disagreement over suitability of dates.

Pillays 20-minute-meeting with the President began with a handshake.

However, after the second US-backed resolution in March, the Government again took a tough stand but later began to relent. The broader implications had dawned on it. With the External Affairs Ministry (EAM) playing little or no role, it was President Rajapaksa who charted a new strategy. The second US-backed resolution had mandated Pillay to give an oral briefing to the UNHRC in September. A Government refusal in this backdrop would have meant that it was trying to cover up the issues raised. Hence, the UPFA went on an overdrive. The Sinhala adage Kappanna beri atha imbinawa wagey or kissing the hand that cannot be chopped off underscored the mood. Issues raised in the US resolution were resurrected after they had remained in the backburner for some time. Measures were adopted to deal with them. One such case is the arrest of an ASP and 11 police officers of the Special Task Force for the alleged murder of five Tamil students from the Katubedde University. The incident had taken place on January 2, 2006 in Trincomalee. Those arrested, now in remand custody, will appear in courts tomorrow. A Presidential Commission of Inquiry was named to probe disappearances. On Friday, the Ministry of Defence and Urban Development directed Army Commander, Lt. Gen. Daya Ratnayake to relieve from duties Brigadier Harsha Gunawardena and three Lieutenant Colonels. They will face a Court Martial over the Weliweriya shooting. This is after a Court of Inquiry headed by Major General Jagath Dias found them guilty. The Sunday Times has learnt from authoritative sources that the creation of the new Ministry of Law and Order was a direct sequel to the Weliweriya incidents. It is also a recommendation by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). With the creation of this new Ministry, President Rajapaksa has directed Police Chief N.K. Illangakoon to train and equip more police contingents to cope with situations arising from civil unrest. Hence, the Police are to seek help from the armed forces only in extreme situations where their supporting role becomes inevitable. Otherwise Police will handle them. Earlier, the Government had decided to incorporate only 91 recommendations of the LLRC in the National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP). Under five different themes, these recommendations were deemed as most significant with potential to be promptly implemented by 22 key government agencies, President Rajapaksa told his ministers. Thereafter, he recommended to them that a further 53 recommendations should be incorporated into the NHRAP. Highlights of this were reported exclusively in the Sunday Times (Political Commentary- June 9). These 53 recommendations, approved by the cabinet of ministers in July, relate to issues concerning International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights, Treatment of Detainees, Vulnerable Groups, Disabled Persons, Internally Displaced Persons, Concerns relating to the Muslim Community in the North and East, Return and Resettlement, Restitution/Compensatory Relief, Reconciliation, Language Policy and Other Measures. However, no reference was made then to the creation of a Law and Order Ministry, also a recommendation by the LLRC.

Ms.Pillay referred to her meeting with whom she mistakenly referred to as the Permanent Secretary to the President, Lalith Weeratunga who is chairing the National Plan of Action on the LLRC recommendations. She offered UN good offices to help implement some of these proposals, but when she met Weeartunga she had asked him why the Government was changing some of the names of north and eastern towns like Mutur, Thirukovil and Potuvil. Who told you all this? Weeratunga asked and said there was nothing of the sort contemplated by the Government. He went on to ask a senior Defence Ministry official to take photographs of these name boards and have them sent to her. Even if the Government was forced to roll out the red carpet for Pillay and her entourage, the bitterness at all levels over the visit surfaced in different ways. There were also contradictions in the approaches by key players not only in the Government but also in the main opposition UNP. On a visit to Belarus, President Rajapaksa declared that certain countries were using the UN Human Rights Council against those like Sri Lanka and Belarus. In the case of Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa was alluding to the US-backed resolutions at the UNHRC. Whilst this was playing out, in Colombo this week, US Ambassador Michele J. Sison met National Movement for Social Justice Convenor, Venerable Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thera, at his vihare. At the meeting sought by the US Embassy, she discussed the movements ten point plan. The major highlight of this plan is to abolish the executive presidency. A report on this meeting appears elsewhere in this newspaper. It is known that the UNHRC is also focusing on Belarus over human rights violations there and curtailment of other freedoms by President Alexander Lukashenkos corrupt administration. He has remained in office for the past 19 years winning four successive presidential elections. The last was won by a near 80 per cent vote in his favour. On Thursday, after a meeting with Pillay, External Affairs Minister Peiris put out his customary news release. If he attempted to deal with all issues, there was not one word on the questions raised by Pillay to him. In other words, the aim was to please those in power by cataloguing what he said on the issues involved and how he admonished her. The statement was strongly worded and had some advice for her too. He said, It is important to have an objective approach and extend equal treatment to all countries when fulfill ing the assigned mandate. Alas, Sri Lankas External Affairs Minister had missed out on an objective approach only last week when he gave favoured treatment to the Indian media over Indian Government officials. The Sunday Times (Political Commentary) last week revealed how his itinerary during a visit to New Delhi to invite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the Commonwealth Summit in Colombo began first with a meeting with the Indian media. That encounter has had its sequel according to EAM sources in Colombo. They say Sri Lankas High Commissioner Prasad Kariyawasam, was called to the Indian External Affairs Ministry and told of the Indian Governments displeasure over Peiris making an official statement whilst in New Delhi. Peiris said that arrests of Tamil Nadu fishermen poaching in Sri Lankas territorial waters were a deterrent mechanism. The remarks have been perceived as a diplomatic threat of arresting fishermen who will cross the IMBL (International Maritime Boundary Line). The fact that Peiris delivered it to the Indian media, casting aside diplomatic norms had earned the ire of the Government there. If Peiris dealt with what are widely regarded as the key issues related to the Pillay visit in his latest news release, there were areas with exceptions. It was particularly the subject of human rights. Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe too met Pillay on Thursday. Though he levelled personal criticism against Pillay at the March UNHRC sessions, Samarasinghe was relatively frank. He told reporters after the meeting, I am candid enough to say there are challenges ahead of us. I mean no country can be expected to overcome surmountable challenges we are facing at the end of a 30- year-conflict. We faced the worst form of terrorism the world has seen. On the one hand, there is Sri Lankas External Affairs Minister going on a diplomatic demolition course through a news release. On the other, the Presidents Special Envoy on Human Rights, though by hindsight in a meeting which Rajapaksa did not favour, is taking a more pragmatic approach. The contradictions are quite clear. The Ravana Balaya, an organisation backed by a Government Minister, staged a protest outside the UNs Colombo office in Bauddhaloka Mawatha on Monday. Minister Mervyn Silva called Pillay Navanandana Pillai taking the cue from name of Navanandana Wijesinghe, a local comedian. Deputy Fisheries Minister Sarath Kumara Gunaratne also used the same name when he spoke to the media. On Friday, Minister Wimal Weerawansa, who is well known for voicing the views of the UPFA leadership, hurriedly summoned a news

conference. He said, The only aim of Navi Pillays visit to Sri Lanka is to submit a negative report to the UN Human Rights Council. Her actions have proved what we have been saying over and again. It is clear that the government gave this opportunity genuinely, but the question whether Ms Pillay is genuine needs to be raised. It is clear that any danger to Sri Lanka will not recede with her submitting a report. She will give credibility to what she has already decided. This is by saying she has now visited Sri Lanka. The public in this country may recall that it was admitted that the so-called UN panel report was not a UN document. It is this same issue which is continuing. There is little doubt Minister Weerawansa has filed answer to what influential sections of the Government perhaps perceive would be a harsh response by Pillay at the UNHRC sessions. If their fears become a reality in the weeks to come, Minister Weerawansas remarks would be a justification. Sri Lankas main opposition UNP was also riven by contradictions. As revealed in these columns last week, Opposition (and UNP) Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe named a three-member committee to formulate a report to be presented to Pillay during their meeting on Friday. The outlines had been formulated by Karu Jayasuriya and Srinath Perera, PC. The latter has been appointed human rights coordinator of the party after the death of Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena, three months ago. The third member, Mangala Samaraweera has been busy campaigning in the North Western Province. The report was found to be mild, inadequate and incomplete, a party source said. Hence Wickremesinghe had handed over to Pillay one that has been formulated by him. The source said that the amended report encompassed many aspects and claimed it was more realistic. The final touches have been given by Wickremesinghe with the help of Perera. The UN Human Rights High Commissioner met Wickremesinghe at his residence at Fifth Lane, Kollupitiya and the meeting lasted 45 minutes. Even at that meeting, Pillay was livid about Minister Silvas marriage proposal. They have had their say. I will have mine tomorrow, she said referring to her news conference. It prompted Ravi Karunanayake MP to say not all MPs are like that. I apologise on behalf of our fraternity for what happened. Wickremesinghe said that his party (UNP) was concerned about the overall democratic structure in the country and that Sri L anka was not a fully functional democracy. He said the LLRC had also admitted that and it was within Pillays mandate to scrutinise these shortcomings. He said the short-circuiting of the 17th Amendment by the 18th Amendment was a violation of the UN resolution on Sri Lanka of 2009 and the restoration of the Independent Police Commission was a good first step. He then gave her a draft amended 17th Amendment (which will be the 19th Amendment) to bring back these independent bodies and said that the government and the opposition can pass this Bill before the UNHRC sessions this month. The new draft Bill also limits the Presidents term of office to two terms though the 18A allows the President to contest any number of times. A copy of Karu Jayasuriyas private members bill on the Freedom of Information Act was also handed over to Pillay. When she raised questions about ethnic tensions, Colombo Mayor A.J.M. Muzzamil gave her a briefing. Wickremesinghe then said that while religious intolerance was an issue, the Government had once threatened even the High Priests of Kandy (Buddhists Mahayaakes) by saying they would break up the Siam Nikaya (sect) to which they belonged and create a new sect because the prelates had wanted former Army Commander and Presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka released. Mangala Samaraweera, the UNPs Communications Director, told the Sunday Times, We told her that since the war ended, democratic institutions were deteriorating. We said if the Government is sincere about democracy, it should re-introduce the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. It was withdrawn in 2010 hurriedly. We also told her of the need for a Freedom of Information Act. He said the UNP delegation also handed over to Pillay a copy of the partys draft proposals for a new constitution. She was well informed an d aware of many developments in detail, he added. In marked contrast to the position taken up with Pillay by the UNP delegation, the partys former deputy leader, Sajith Premadasa has struck a discordant note. He criticised Pillay harshly at a political rally in Kurunegala. Pillay was a person who was aslee p when the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was committing human rights violations in Sri Lanka, he said. He charged that Pillay had only now begun to remember human rights and it was after our war heroes began to score military victories. He said in allowing Pillay to visit Sri Lanka, the Government was causing great harm and added that Pillay had no right to interfere in Sri Lanka.

The remarks came as a grave embarrassment to the UNP and its candidates contesting the North Western Provincial Council elections. It ran counter to the positions taken by other speakers at election rallies in the Kurunegala District. It was consonant with the position taken up by speakers for UPFA candidates in a district which is said to have the largest concentration of personnel from the armed forces Another aspect of the second US-backed resolution at the UNHRC is the call for the Government of Sri Lanka to co -operate with special procedures mandate holders to respond formally to their outstanding requests, including by extending invitations and providing access. In the case of the latter, the likelihood of different special mandate holders dealing with religious freedom and mi nority rights are among those likely to visit Colombo. Such visits are expected with an eye on the UNHRC sessions in March next year. One of the areas of importance for the Rapporteur on Minority Rights is hate speech, a subject which Pillay discussed with National Languages and Social Integration Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara. He has noted that t he LLRC sets out the need to enact deterrent laws to preserve rational and religious co-existence and prevent hate speech against any ethnic group or religious group. He told his ministerial colleagues recently, Although this subject matter has been assigned to the Ministry of Justice, since the subject of Ethnic Affairs has been assigned to my Ministry, I consider it as my responsibility to take appropriate action in this regard with the concurrence of the Hon. Minister of Justice. He recommended that provisions against hate speech now enshrined in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 48 of 1979 (Section 2 (1) (h) be written into the Penal Code. This provision states: any person who by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise causes or intends to cause commission of acts of violence or religious, racial or communal harmony or feelings or ill-will or hostility between different communities or racial or religious groups shall be guilty of an offence. Nanayakkara told Pillay that legislation would be introduced once a ministerial sub-committee completes deliberations on the matter. It is now being examined by a Cabinet Sub Committee chaired by Minister Susil Premajayantha. Among other members are Sarath Amunugama, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Tissa Vitharana and Rauff Hakeem. In a departure from the subject at issue, Nanayakkara also took the opportunity to assert that he did not share some of the views expressed by his ministerial colleagues. Also incorporated into this sub committee to study the proposed laws is Minister Champika Ranawaka. Earlier on Friday, Pillay addressed the Youth Parliament of the National Youth Council in Maharagama an initiative of Youth Affairs Minister Dullas Allahapperuma. Some of the words of advice given by her have not been said by either UPFA or opposition leaders. A few of those MPs expressed strong views reflecting opinion in the south. Here is what she said: I am concerned when I see young people here and in the diaspora frozen in the hatred that fuelled the war. I am concerned when religion is misused to mobilise young people of one community against another. But Im greatly encouraged when I hear about y oung people coming together from across communities to defend independent universities, to fight discrimination against women or people with different sexual identities and orientation to say no to ethnic or religious violence. I am pleased to come to Sri Lanka at a time that the war has ended and scourge of terrorism hopefu lly put behind you, this is a moment when the new generation in Sri Lanka can transcend the differences, prejudices and politics of their parents and play a transformative role in building a new society. At a crowded news conference at the UN office in Colombo, Pillay took questions after circulating a six-page text which was her opening remarks. Warning that Sri Lanka was increasingly heading in an authoritarian direction, Pillay urged the Government to issue immediate orders to halt treatment of human rights defenders and journalists who face harassment and intimidation on a regular basis. She noted self censorship fuelled by fear, journalists report that there are articles they dare not write, and others their editors dare not print. Freedom of expression is under a sustained assault in Sri Lanka. I have called for the Right to Information Act to be adopted like many of its neighbours in SAARC. Now, with Pillays visit concluded, the focus shifts again to Geneva. What she tells the UNHRC in Septembe r will shape the events in March next year. Whilst blowing hot and cold, the Government will no doubt have to face some tough challenges.

Columns

The vicious cycle of public debt and debt servicing cost

View(s): 114

In as much as fiscal deficits over many years have contributed towards the large public debt, the debt servicing costs of the large accumulated debt is an important underlying reason for incurring recurring fiscal deficits. To break this vicious cycle the fiscal deficit must be reduced significantly to below 5 per cent of GDP to bring down the continuing burden of the public debt servicing cost.

Previous columns have pointed out the difficulties of containing the deficit owing to constraints on both the revenue and expenditure sides of the fiscal equation. However difficult the task is, its attainment is vital for economic stability and sustained economic growth and social development. A conviction that this is so should lead to a strong resolve to take meaningful measures to reduce the deficit. Increasing debt It is true that the fiscal deficit as a proportion of GDP has shown a declining trend, even though there was an increase in 2012. Yet this declining trend has not been of much avail as the amount of the debt has been increasing and the debt servicing costs have been rising to such an extent that last years revenue was inadequate to meet the debt servicing costs. Consequently further borrowing to meet recurrent and capital expenditure has increased the debt servicing costs.

The reduction of the public debt as a proportion of GDP has not been of much help as revenue collection has fallen as a proportion of GDP. Tax revenue has declined from 14.5 per cent of GDP in 2000 to as low as 11.1 per cent in 2012. It is a curious feature of the Sri Lankan economy and public finances that the revenue to GDP ratio declined when the economy grew faster. Even though the amount of revenue increased, it has declined as a proportion of GDP. This raises questions about the quality of growth and the calculation and estimates of the growth statistic. Similarly the economic growth of 8.0, 8.2 and 6.4 per cent in the last three years has led to massive trade deficits and increased foreign borrowing to avert balance of payments difficulties. We are told by authoritative sources that the economy will grow faster this year at 7.3 per cent. It is hoped that this respectable growth rate would lead to increased exports and a reduced

trade deficit and that this years growth would lower the fiscal deficit brought about by higher revenues, lesser losses in public enterprises and more prudent public expenditure. This may be too much of an expectation given the past record and the emerging evidence for this year. No doubt the additional expenditure in show casing the country for the CHOGM delegates would be a good excuse for overshooting expenditure and not achieving the fiscal deficit target. We can only hope that the budget that is being prepared for 2014 will ensure a significant departure to achieve a substantial decline in the fiscal deficit in at least 2014. Regressive taxation The unsatisfactory fiscal situation leads to several other detrimental impacts and repercussions. Among these has been the tendency for regressive taxation. Within the last year there have been several taxation measures that have been regressive. Import duties have been levied on several basic items of consumption such as dhal, sugar, wheat flour and milk powder, increasing the burden on poor households.

These taxes thinly disguised as taxes to encourage domestic food production are a threat to food security of poor households and may result in an increase in under-nutrition of a significant proportion of households. The inadequate expenditure in education and health are further repercussions of the inadequacy of revenue. In brief, the unhealthy state of public finances has led to a distorted prioritisation of public expenditure that would have severe long-term adverse repercussions on sustaining economic growth and social development. Targets and performance The importance of containing the fiscal deficit by increasing revenue and pruning expenditure is officially recognised but the budgetary outturns have been off target. Overruns in public expenditure and shortfalls in revenue have been persistent problems over many years.

Consequently the development of social infrastructure has been seriously neglected at the cost of the countrys long-run economic and social development. The implications of the preceding discussion are that the large debt servicing costs are a burden on the poor. Apart from the regressive taxation and the depreciating currency that burdens the poor, the inability of the government to expend required finances for education, health and social services means that the poor would remain poor. The countrys post independent social transformation has been brought about by expenditure on education and health. The current state of public finances is a serious constraint to advancing the quality of education and maintaining the health of the poor. In addition, the country has reached the fourth phase of the demographic transition of an ageing population.

This means there is a need for higher social expenditure that would improve facilities in hospitals to take care of ailments associated with ageing. These include geriatric care, higher incidence of heart conditions, diabetes, Alzheimers and other infirmities associated with old age. Besides this, there is a need for much higher expenditure for institutional care of the elderly. The increase in this need is due to both the ageing of the population and the breakdown of the traditional method of caring for the elderly in their homes. The state of the public finances and the prioritisation of expenditure have hardly addressed this emerging social problem. Summing up The increasing public debt and its high servicing cost that absorbs the highest amount and proportion of government revenue lead in turn to increasing borrowing that increases future debt servicing costs. Breaking this vicious cycle is vital to achieve economic stability and prioritise government expenditure. Measures to increase revenue as well as decrease government expenditure on non- productive activities and the reduction of losses in public enterprises are essential to achieve a lowering of the fiscal deficit. The recognition that the large fiscal deficit is the core economic problem should lead to strong resolve to reduce public expenditure. There should be a strong resolve to break the vicious cycle of the public debt that leads to high debt servicing costs that in turn increases the public debt.

Share This Post

Columns
Govt. caught in Hurricane Pillay as she ends whirlwind tour
By Our Political Editor

View(s): 1486

Mervyns remarks draw angry retort from UN Human Rights chief; President livid over EAMs mishandling of crucial visit UNP presents tough report; wants 19A to nullify 18A; focus now on what happens in Geneva this month
It was Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, the UPFA Governments point man for many issues who hosted the cocktail reception on Thursday night for a select crowd of politicians, diplomats and officials at the Colombo Hilton. That was in honour of Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He took it upon himself to protect the honour and integrity of the cabinet of ministers. Surrounded by a few guests, de Silva told Pillay, Madam, Dont take ou r Minister Mervyn Silvas remarks seriously. She was quick on the draw and responded, It is not I who should take it seriously. It is you. She looked angry and her characteristic smile was absent as she retorted.

If de Silva took a few seconds to recover, others present watched helplessly. They included Ministers D.E.W. Gunasekera, Douglas Devananda, Rauff Hakeem, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, External Affairs Ministry Additional Secretary Kshenuka Seneviratne, Colombo University Vice Chancellor Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama, and Parliamentarian J. Sri Ranga. Minister de Silva was alluding to a front-page news report in our sister newspaper Daily Mirror about remarks by his colleague Mervyn Silva, Minister of Public Relations and Public Affairs. Mervyn remarked he was willing to marry Pillay. I urge her to join me in a trip around the country. I would teach her the history of Sri Lanka. I would tell her about Maha Ravana, he had said. That a memb er of President Mahinda Rajapaksas cabinet of ministers had proposed marriage to her publicly, an unusual one when he had not even set eyes on Pillay had naturally angered her. It came from the Minister tasked with the portfolio of Public Relations at that. Making a marriage proposal to a visiting senior United Nations diplomat had been the talking point among ministers this week. So much so, some complained that Silva was being allowed to get away with whatever he did no matter even if it made them look like fools in the eyes of the world. That ministers in Sri Lanka were trying to make wives out of official visitors, they said, also placed the country in bad light. Hence, Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, who is now a trouble shooter, took upon the task to clear the air. The one-liner rapid response from Pillay, it seemed, was a message not only to Minister de Silva, the messenger, but the entire cabinet of ministers. Pillay wants them to take seriously the implicati ons of Minister Mervyn Silvas clownish marriage proposal. In her statement issued yesterday prior to her departure, Pillay referred to three Government ministers joining in what she called the wildly incorrect and deeply offensive accusations when she was in the country, that she was an LTTE sympathiser. An accomplished lawyer, Pillay, the daughter of a bus driver, was the first South African to obtain a doctorate in law from the Harvard Law School. She won the right for political prisoners on Robben Island including Nelson Mandela, to have access to lawyers. After the African National Congress came to power, Mandela nominated Pillay as the first non-white woman to serve the High Court of South Africa. She served the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for eight years, half the period as its President, before quitting and joining the UN. Other than that, Minister Mervyn Silva was also in trouble. On Friday, he was to have a meeting at the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery Corruption. Due to the intervention of a VVIP, he has now won time for three months. The Commission wants him to explain the sources of income from which he reportedly acquired, among others, vehicles, buildings and other property. Only weeks earlier, he had offended the UPFA leadership. One was over biting criticism against them on the incidents at Weliveriya. Another was reports that he had a meeting with Venerable Maduluwawe Sobhita Thera, Chief Incumbent of the Kotte Naga Viharaya and Convenor of the National Movement for Social Justice. When queried, he is reported to have replied that he went there for religious reasons. However, other reports said Silva had during a meeting faulted the opposition, particularly United National Party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, for reportedly not being able to deal with the Government effectively. Both as Minister and as Leader of the House, Nimala Siripala de Silva has been the UPFA Governments point man. Issues for hi m range from peace talks at one time and chairing nomination boards of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) for this month s three provincial polls. He is now chairing a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on matters relating to the 13th Amendment and reconciliation. It was last Wednesday that de Silva told a news conference Pillay could go anywhere in Sri Lanka and obtain first-hand knowledge of the real situation over allegations levelled by enemies of the country. He observed that she could release a good or bad report aft er her study. He was also to remark that Pillay could not give orders and asserted that the Government would not follow them if issued. Pillay and a high ranking official entourage wrapped up a week-long visit to Sri Lanka yesterday. A report on the news conference she addressed after winding up her visit appears elsewhere in this newspaper. Later this month, she will make an oral statement on her findings in Sri Lanka to the 24th sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The event will be held from September 9 to 27. Whilst it is not immediately clear what shape and form her presentation to the UNHRC would take, remarks by a Colombo-based diplomat who spoke on grounds of anonymity gave a sneak preview. Pillay has noted during her interactions in Colombo that there was a major gap in the positions taken by those speaking for the Government and others representing civil society. She is sure to identify the areas where there is forward movement and highlight the

areas where there are inadequacies. If one is to go by the current mood, it wont be easy going. She is tough and will speak her mind out, said the diplomat. She is also preparing an 8,500 word report for the UNHRC for their March 2014 sessions. There is lit tle doubt that such a briefing would encompass some of the newer issues like the Army shooting at Weliveriya and the incidents at the mosque in Grandpass. Though a meeting with President Mahinda Rajapaksa had been sought for ten minutes, it extended to twenty. When Pillay walked into Temple Trees, there were a group of schoolchildren on a visit to meet Rajapaksa. One of them asked her from where she was and she replied from South Africa. On her way out, President Rajapaksa told Pillay I know you have already written your report; yo u are only here to validate it, to which Pillay quickly replied No, no, Your Excellency, that is not the case.

Opposition UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe showing UN High Commissioner Dr. Navi Pillay a framed painting of King Wimaladharmasuriya welcoming the visiting Dutch Ambassador to Sri Lanka when she called on him for talks this week at his 5th Lane residence .

Later, a statement from the Presidents Office said, President Rajapaksa told Ms. Pillay there is a belief among many Sri La nkans that the United Nations is biased in the way it deals with countries, and he said he urged those who voiced these concerns to him not to prejudge the report Ms. Pillay is due to issue. However, the Sinhala text of the news release was different. It said: The pe ople of this country have a belief that the UN is a pessimistic organisation. They believe that her report would include prejudged matters. The President said though his Cabinet included different groups, he was able to lead them to a common goal. Rajapaksa was to find fault with the External Affairs Ministry for what he considered were a string of blunders during the visit of Pillay. He was livid that the EAM, which plays a minimum role in the conduct of the countrys foreign relations, had lined up the fir st meeting for Pillay with Justice Minister Rauff Hakeem. Rajapaksa has also spoken to Hakeem criticising him for the way he handled the meeting. He was perhaps unhappy that his Justice Minister did not counter more effectively Pillays observation that th e Police Department should have been under his (Hakeems) Ministry. The subject had come up when there was a discussion over the setting up of the new Law and Order Ministry which is under the President. Peiris had told Rajapaksa that Hakeem should have been more assertive. President Rajapaksa had also felt there was no need for the EAM to have arranged for a meeting with Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, Presidents Special Envoy on Human Rights. Since the External Affairs Minister was meeting her, he felt, i t was not necessary. His displeasure over this was conveyed to External Affairs Ministry Secretary Karunatilleke Amunugama. When Pillay arrived for her meeting with Peiris, she was taken aback by the number of photographers. She had asked him why there was a large presence of media personnel. Peiris replied that they were his Ministry people and added that as Pillay was due t o hold a news conference before her departure he was going to issue his own statement after their meeting.

When they met, Pillay complained to Peiris that she was being vilified in sections of the Sri Lankan media. Peiris replied that was probably how the media viewed her visit. Another cabinet minister, who learnt of these remarks, was to say somewhat mischiev ously he should have said that is because the media is free and there is democracy in Sri Lanka. He also should have said even I am being vilified. That was lost on him. Or maybe he didnt want to admit to that. For the UPFA Government, reputed for blowing hot and cold, the Pillay visit is no exception. After the adoption of the first US backed resolution in Geneva in March 2011, the Government adopted a tough stance. There were strongly worded letters addressed to Pillay. One came in January this year after Chief Justice 43 Shirani Bandaranayake was impeached. Then acting External Affairs Ministry Secretary Kshenuka Seneviratne said your action in resorting to unwarranted comments with a series of innuendos on an is sue which is entirely a domestic matter for Sri Lanka, and that too without first engaging with our Permanent Representative or the delegation of Sri Lanka in Geneva, demonstrates yet again the deviation from established procedure, amounting to blatant interference in an issue of a sovereign country. A visit to Sri Lanka by Pillay, though listed then, did not materialise. UN officials accused the Government of stonewalling. Local officials said there was disagreement over suitability of dates.

Pillays 20-minute-meeting with the President began with a handshake.

However, after the second US-backed resolution in March, the Government again took a tough stand but later began to relent. The broader implications had dawned on it. With the External Affairs Ministry (EAM) playing little or no role, it was President Rajapaksa who charted a new strategy. The second US-backed resolution had mandated Pillay to give an oral briefing to the UNHRC in September. A Government refusal in this backdrop would have meant that it was trying to cover up the issues raised. Hence, the UPFA went on an overdrive. The Sinhala adage Kappanna beri atha imbinawa wagey or kissing the hand that cannot be chopped off underscored the mood. Issues raised in the US resolution were resurrected after they had remained in the backburner for some time. Measures were adopted to deal with them. One such case is the arrest of an ASP and 11 police officers of the Special Task Force for the alleged murder of five Tamil students from the Katubedde University. The incident had taken place on January 2, 2006 in Trincomalee. Those arrested, now in remand custody, will appear in courts tomorrow. A Presidential Commission of Inquiry was named to probe disappearances. On Friday, the Ministry of Defence and Urban Development directed Army Commander, Lt. Gen. Daya Ratnayake to relieve from duties Brigadier Harsha Gunawardena and three Lieutenant Colonels. They will face a Court Martial over the Weliweriya shooting. This is after a Court of Inquiry headed by Major General Jagath Dias found them guilty. The Sunday Times has learnt from authoritative sources that the creation of the new Ministry of Law and Order was a direct sequel to the Weliweriya incidents. It is also a recommendation by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). With the creation of this new Ministry, President Rajapaksa has directed Police Chief N.K. Illangakoon to train and equip more police contingents to cope with situations arising from civil unrest. Hence, the Police are

to seek help from the armed forces only in extreme situations where their supporting role becomes inevitable. Otherwise Police will handle them. Earlier, the Government had decided to incorporate only 91 recommendations of the LLRC in the National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP). Under five different themes, these recommendations were deemed as most significant with potential to be promptly implemented by 22 key government agencies, President Rajapaksa told his ministers. Thereafter, he recommended to them that a further 53 recommendations should be incorporated into the NHRAP. Highlights of this were reported exclusively in the Sunday Times (Political Commentary- June 9). These 53 recommendations, approved by the cabinet of ministers in July, relate to issues concerning International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights, Treatment of Detainees, Vulnerable Groups, Disabled Persons, Internally Displaced Persons, Concerns relating to the Muslim Community in the North and East, Return and Resettlement, Restitution/Compensatory Relief, Reconciliation, Language Policy and Other Measures. However, no reference was made then to the creation of a Law and Order Ministry, also a recommendation by the LLRC. Ms.Pillay referred to her meeting with whom she mistakenly referred to as the Permanent Secretary to the President, Lalith Weeratunga who is chairing the National Plan of Action on the LLRC recommendations. She offered UN good offices to help implement some of these proposals, but when she met Weeartunga she had asked him why the Government was changing some of the names of north and eastern towns like Mutur, Thirukovil and Potuvil. Who told you all this? Weeratunga asked and said there was nothing of the sort contemplated by the Government. He went on to ask a senior Defence Ministry official to take photographs of these name boards and have them sent to her. Even if the Government was forced to roll out the red carpet for Pillay and her entourage, the bitterness at all levels over the visit surfaced in different ways. There were also contradictions in the approaches by key players not only in the Government but also in the main opposition UNP. On a visit to Belarus, President Rajapaksa declared that certain countries were using the UN Human Rights Council against those like Sri Lanka and Belarus. In the case of Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa was alluding to the US-backed resolutions at the UNHRC. Whilst this was playing out, in Colombo this week, US Ambassador Michele J. Sison met National Movement for Social Justice Convenor, Venerable Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thera, at his vihare. At the meeting sought by the US Embassy, she discussed the movements ten point plan. The major highlight of this plan is to abolish the executive presidency. A report on this meeting appears elsewhere in this newspaper. It is known that the UNHRC is also focusing on Belarus over human rights violations there and curtailment of other freedoms by President Alexander Lukashenkos corrupt administration. He has remained in office for the past 19 years winning four successive presidential elections. The last was won by a near 80 per cent vote in his favour. On Thursday, after a meeting with Pillay, External Affairs Minister Peiris put out his customary news release. If he attempted to deal with all issues, there was not one word on the questions raised by Pillay to him. In other words, the aim was to please those in power by cataloguing what he said on the issues involved and how he admonished her. The statement was strongly worded and had some advice for her too. He said, It is important to have an objective approach and extend equal treatment to all countries when fulfilling the assigned mandate. Alas, Sri Lankas External Affairs Minister had missed out on an objective approach only last week when he gave favoured treatment to the Indian media over Indian Government officials. The Sunday Times (Political Commentary) last week revealed how his itinerary during a visit to New Delhi to invite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the Commonwealth Summit in Colombo began first with a meeting with the Indian media. That encounter has had its sequel according to EAM sources in Colombo. They say Sri Lankas High Commissioner Prasad Kariyawasam, was called to the Indian External Affairs Ministry and told of the Indian Governments displeasure over Peiris m aking an official statement whilst in New Delhi. Peiris said that arrests of Tamil Nadu fishermen poaching in Sri Lankas territorial waters were a deterrent mechanism. The remarks have been perceived as a diplomatic threat of arresting fishermen who will cross the IMBL (International Maritime Boundary Line). The fact that Peiris delivered it to the Indian media, casting aside diplomatic norms had earned the ire of the Government there.

If Peiris dealt with what are widely regarded as the key issues related to the Pillay visit in his latest news release, there were areas with exceptions. It was particularly the subject of human rights. Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe too met Pillay on Thursday. Though he levelled personal criticism against Pillay at the March UNHRC sessions, Samarasinghe was relatively frank. He told reporters after the meeting, I am candid enough to say there are challenges ahead of us. I mean no country can be expected to overcome surmounta ble challenges we are facing at the end of a 30- year-conflict. We faced the worst form of terrorism the world has seen. On the one hand, there is Sri Lankas External Affairs Minister going on a diplomatic demolition course through a news release. On the other, the Presidents Special Envoy on Human Rights, though by hindsight in a meeting which Rajapaksa did not favour, is taking a more pragmatic approach. The contradictions are quite clear. The Ravana Balaya, an organisation backed by a Government Minister, staged a protest outside the UNs Colombo office in Bauddhaloka Mawatha on Monday. Minister Mervyn Silva called Pillay Navanandana Pillai taking the cue from name of Navanandana Wijesinghe, a local comedian. Deputy Fisheries Minister Sarath Kumara Gunaratne also used the same name when he spoke to the media. On Friday, Minister Wimal Weerawansa, who is well known for voicing the views of the UPFA leadership, hurriedly summoned a news conference. He said, The only aim of Navi Pillays visit to Sri Lanka is to submit a negative report to the UN Human Rights Council. Her actions have proved what we have been saying over and again. It is clear that the government gave this opportunity genuinely, but the question whether Ms Pillay is genuine needs to be raised. It is clear that any danger to Sri Lanka will not recede with her submitting a report. She will give credibility to what she has already decided. This is by saying she has now visited Sri Lanka. The public in this country may recall that it was admitted that the so-called UN panel report was not a UN document. It is this same issue which is continuing. There is little doubt Minister Weerawansa has filed answer to what influential sections of the Government perhaps perceive would be a harsh response by Pillay at the UNHRC sessions. If their fears become a reality in the weeks to come, Minister Weerawansas remarks would be a justification. Sri Lankas main opposition UNP was also riven by contradictions. As revealed in these columns last week, Opposition (and UNP ) Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe named a three-member committee to formulate a report to be presented to Pillay during their meeting on Friday. The outlines had been formulated by Karu Jayasuriya and Srinath Perera, PC. The latter has been appointed human rights coordinator of the party after the death of Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena, three months ago. The third member, Mangala Samaraweera has been busy campaigning in the North Western Province. The report was found to be mild, inadequate and incomplete, a party source said. Hence Wickremesinghe had handed over to Pillay one that has been formulated by him. The source said that the amended report encompassed many aspects and claimed it was more realistic. The final touches have been given by Wickremesinghe with the he lp of Perera. The UN Human Rights High Commissioner met Wickremesinghe at his residence at Fifth Lane, Kollupitiya and the meeting lasted 45 minutes. Even at that meeting, Pillay was livid about Minister Silvas marriage proposal. They have had their say. I will have mine t omorrow, she said referring to her news conference. It prompted Ravi Karunanayake MP to say not all MPs are like that. I apologise on behalf of our fraternity for what happened. Wickremesinghe said that his party (UNP) was concerned about the overall democratic structure in the country and that Sri Lanka was not a fully functional democracy. He said the LLRC had also admitted that and it was within Pillays mandate to scrutinise th ese shortcomings. He said the short-circuiting of the 17th Amendment by the 18th Amendment was a violation of the UN resolution on Sri Lanka of 2009 and the restoration of the Independent Police Commission was a good first step. He then gave her a draft amended 17th Amendment (which will be the 19th Amendment) to bring back these independent bodies and said that the government and the opposition can pass this Bill before the UNHRC sessions this month. The new draft Bill also limits the Presidents term of office to two terms though the 18A allows the President to contest any number of times. A copy of Karu Jayasuriyas private members bill on the Freedom of Information Act was also handed over to Pillay. When she raised questions about ethnic tensions, Colombo Mayor A.J.M. Muzzamil gave her a briefing. Wickremesinghe then said that while religious intolerance was an issue, the Government had once threatened even the High Priests of Kandy (Buddhists Mahayaakes) by saying they would break up the Siam Nikaya (sect) to which they belonged and create a new sect because the prelates had wanted former Army Commander and Presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka released.

Mangala Samaraweera, the UNPs Communications Director, told the Sunday Times, We told her that since the war ended, democra tic institutions were deteriorating. We said if the Government is sincere about democracy, it should re-introduce the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. It was withdrawn in 2010 hurriedly. We also told her of the need for a Freedom of Information Act. He said the UNP delegation also handed over to Pillay a copy of the partys draft proposals for a new constitution. She was well informed and aware of many developments in detail, he added. In marked contrast to the position taken up with Pillay by the UNP delegation, the partys former deputy leader, Saj ith Premadasa has struck a discordant note. He criticised Pillay harshly at a political rally in Kurunegala. Pillay was a person who was aslee p when the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was committing human rights violations in Sri Lanka, he said. He charged that Pillay had only now begun to remember human rights and it was after our war heroes began to score military victories. He said in allowing Pillay to visit Sri Lanka, the Government was causing great harm and added that Pillay had no right to interfere in Sri Lanka. The remarks came as a grave embarrassment to the UNP and its candidates contesting the North Western Provincial Council elections. It ran counter to the positions taken by other speakers at election rallies in the Kurunegala District. It was consonant with the position taken up by speakers for UPFA candidates in a district which is said to have the largest concentration of personnel from the armed forces Another aspect of the second US-backed resolution at the UNHRC is the call for the Government of Sri Lanka to co-operate with special procedures mandate holders to respond formally to their outstanding requests, including by extending invitations and providing access. In the case of the latter, the likelihood of different specia l mandate holders dealing with religious freedom and minority rights are among those likely to visit Colombo. Such visits are expected with an eye on the UNHRC sessions in March next year. One of the areas of importance for the Rapporteur on Minority Rights is hate speech, a subject which Pillay discussed with National Languages and Social Integration Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara. He has noted that the LLRC sets out the need to enact deterr ent laws to preserve rational and religious co-existence and prevent hate speech against any ethnic group or religious group. He told his ministerial colleagues recently, Although this subject matter has been assigned to the Ministry of Justice, since the subjec t of Ethnic Affairs has been assigned to my Ministry, I consider it as my responsibility to take appropriate action in this regard with the concurrence of the Hon. Minister of Justice. He recommended that provisions against hate speech now enshrined in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 48 of 1979 (Section 2 (1) (h) be written into the Penal Code. This provision states: any person who by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise causes or intends to cause commission of acts of violence or religious, racial or communal harmony or feelings or ill-will or hostility between different communities or racial or religious groups shall be guilty of an offence. Nanayakkara told Pillay that legislation would be introduced once a ministerial sub-committee completes deliberations on the matter. It is now being examined by a Cabinet Sub Committee chaired by Minister Susil Premajayantha. Among other members are Sarath Amunugama, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Tissa Vitharana and Rauff Hakeem. In a departure from the subject at issue, Nanayakkara also took the opportunity to assert that he did not share some of the views expressed by his ministerial colleagues. Also incorporated into this sub committee to study the proposed laws is Minister Champika Ranawaka. Earlier on Friday, Pillay addressed the Youth Parliament of the National Youth Council in Maharagama an initiative of Youth Affairs Minister Dullas Allahapperuma. Some of the words of advice given by her have not been said by either UPFA or opposition leaders. A few of those MPs expressed strong views reflecting opinion in the south. Here is what she said: I am concerned when I see young people here and in the diaspora frozen in the hatred that fuelled the war. I am concerned wh en religion is misused to mobilise young people of one community against another. But Im greatly encouraged when I hear about young people coming together from across communities to defend independent universities, to fight discrimination against women or people with different sexual identities and orientation to say no to ethnic or religious violence. I am pleased to come to Sri Lanka at a time that the war has ended and scourge of terrorism hopefully put behind you, this i s a moment when the new generation in Sri Lanka can transcend the differences, prejudices and politics of their parents and play a transformative role in building a new society.

At a crowded news conference at the UN office in Colombo, Pillay took questions after circulating a six-page text which was her opening remarks. Warning that Sri Lanka was increasingly heading in an authoritarian direction, Pillay urged the Government to issue immediate orders to halt treatment of human rights defenders and journalists who face harassment and intimidation on a regul ar basis. She noted self censorship fuelled by fear, journalists report that there are articles they dare not write, and others their editors dare not print. Freedom of expression is under a sustained assault in Sri Lanka. I have called for the Right to Information Act to be adopted like many of its neighbours in SAARC. Now, with Pillays visit concluded, the focus shifts again to Geneva. What she tells the UNHRC in September will shape the ev ents in March next year. Whilst blowing hot and cold, the Government will no doubt have to face some tough challenges.

Columns
The vicious cycle of public debt and debt servicing cost
View(s): 115

In as much as fiscal deficits over many years have contributed towards the large public debt, the debt servicing costs of the large accumulated debt is an important underlying reason for incurring recurring fiscal deficits. To break this vicious cycle the fiscal deficit must be reduced significantly to below 5 per cent of GDP to bring down the continuing burden of the public debt servicing cost.

Previous columns have pointed out the difficulties of containing the deficit owing to constraints on both the revenue and expenditure sides of the fiscal equation. However difficult the task is, its attainment is vital for economic stability and sustained economic growth and social development. A conviction that this is so should lead to a strong resolve to take meaningful measures to reduce the deficit. Increasing debt It is true that the fiscal deficit as a proportion of GDP has shown a declining trend, even though there was an increase in 2012. Yet this declining trend has not been of much avail as the amount of the debt has been increasing and the debt servicing costs have been rising to such an extent that last years revenue was inadequate to meet the debt servicing costs. Consequently further borrowing to meet recurrent and capital expenditure has increased the debt servicing costs.

The reduction of the public debt as a proportion of GDP has not been of much help as revenue collection has fallen as a proportion of GDP. Tax revenue has declined from 14.5 per cent of

GDP in 2000 to as low as 11.1 per cent in 2012. It is a curious feature of the Sri Lankan economy and public finances that the revenue to GDP ratio declined when the economy grew faster. Even though the amount of revenue increased, it has declined as a proportion of GDP. This raises questions about the quality of growth and the calculation and estimates of the growth statistic. Similarly the economic growth of 8.0, 8.2 and 6.4 per cent in the last three years has led to massive trade deficits and increased foreign borrowing to avert balance of payments difficulties. We are told by authoritative sources that the economy will grow faster this year at 7.3 per cent. It is hoped that this respectable growth rate would lead to increased exports and a reduced trade deficit and that this years growth would lower the fiscal def icit brought about by higher revenues, lesser losses in public enterprises and more prudent public expenditure. This may be too much of an expectation given the past record and the emerging evidence for this year. No doubt the additional expenditure in show casing the country for the CHOGM delegates would be a good excuse for overshooting expenditure and not achieving the fiscal deficit target. We can only hope that the budget that is being prepared for 2014 will ensure a significant departure to achieve a substantial decline in the fiscal deficit in at least 2014. Regressive taxation The unsatisfactory fiscal situation leads to several other detrimental impacts and repercussions. Among these has been the tendency for regressive taxation. Within the last year there have been several taxation measures that have been regressive. Import duties have been levied on several basic items of consumption such as dhal, sugar, wheat flour and milk powder, increasing the burden on poor households.

These taxes thinly disguised as taxes to encourage domestic food production are a threat to food security of poor households and may result in an increase in under-nutrition of a significant proportion of households. The inadequate expenditure in education and health are further repercussions of the inadequacy of revenue. In brief, the unhealthy state of public finances has led to a distorted prioritisation of public expenditure that would have severe long-term adverse repercussions on sustaining economic growth and social development. Targets and performance The importance of containing the fiscal deficit by increasing revenue and pruning expenditure is officially recognised but the budgetary outturns have been off target. Overruns in public expenditure and shortfalls in revenue have been persistent problems over many years. Consequently the development of social infrastructure has been seriously neglected at the cost of the countrys long-run economic and social development. The implications of the preceding discussion are that the large debt servicing costs are a burden on the poor. Apart from the regressive taxation and the depreciating currency that burdens the poor, the inability of the government to expend required finances for education, health and social services means that the poor would remain poor. The countrys post independent social transformation has been brought about by expenditure on education and health. The current state of public finances is a serious constraint to advancing the quality of education and maintaining the health of the poor. In addition, the country has reached the fourth phase of the demographic transition of an ageing population.

This means there is a need for higher social expenditure that would improve facilities in hospitals to take care of ailments associated with ageing. These include geriatric care, higher incidence of heart conditions, diabetes, Alzheimers and other infirmities associated with old age. Besides this, there is a need for much higher expenditure for institutional care of the elderly. The increase in this need is due to both the ageing of the population and the breakdown of the traditional method of caring for the elderly in their homes. The state of the public finances and the prioritisation of expenditure have hardly addressed this emerging social problem. Summing up The increasing public debt and its high servicing cost that absorbs the highest amount and proportion of government revenue lead in turn to increasing borrowing that increases future debt servicing costs. Breaking this vicious cycle is vital to achieve economic stability and prioritise government expenditure.

Measures to increase revenue as well as decrease government expenditure on non- productive activities and the reduction of losses in public enterprises are essential to achieve a lowering of the fiscal deficit. The recognition that the large fiscal deficit is the core economic problem should lead to strong resolve to reduce public expenditure. There should be a strong resolve to break the vicious cycle of the public debt that leads to high debt servicing costs that in turn increases the public debt.

Columns
The governments parading of new law is a mockery
View(s): 117

It is undoubtedly a great irony that at the lowest point of the Sri Lankan Governments adherence to the Rule of Law, we hear its carefully choreographed announcement during the visit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, that enforced disappearances will be criminalised. Law reform means little Is there any value to be given to this announcement? Without the slightest hesitation, the answer to this question must be given resoundingly in the negative. This Government has shown no regard for the law or for the courts. The callous throwing out of the countrys 43rd Chief Justice and the utilisation of the military in Hulfsdorp was a categorical sign of this. Its parading of new law is therefore a mockery. Criminalizing enforced disappearances, which has been a demand of Sri Lankas civil rights advocates for years leaves only a bitter aftertaste. In this environment of a deep shadow security State, such reforms will mean very little.

Certainly trotting out a parade of new laws when this Government wishes to appease others has long since been its enduring trademark. In 2007, it enacted the ludicrously titled International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act to appease international pressure. This Act was a direct result of an ill-reasoned judgment handed down by retired Chief Justice Sarath Silva in the Singarasa case (SCM 15.09.2006) which determined that opinions communicated by the juristic body of the United Nations, (ie, the Human Rights Committee) amounted to an exercise of judicial power within Sri Lanka. The basic fact that the Committees opinions were strictly recommendatory appeared to have been of little account to the Courts decision. Familiar patterns of State abuse

In the wake of the considerable furore that this created, the ICCPR Act was enacted prohibiting inter alia racial and religious hatred and providing a remedy against executive or administrative acts in violation thereof to the High Court. Yet to this date, this law has remained the proverbial dead letter. And now, to our amusement, we hear the Government again announcing the criminalization of hate speech even as the Bodu Bala Sena runs rampant with impunity all over the country arousing virulent anti-Muslim hatred as policemen stand idly by. Where is the value of the law indeed? Moreover Sri Lankas ICCPR obligations meant that the country should have criminalised enforced disappearances a long time ago. Enforced disappearances represent a clear breach of various provisions of the Covenant. In one Communication of Views handed down by the UN Committee against the Sri Lankan State (Sarma v Sri Lanka No 950/2000) Adoption of Views on 31 July 2003) which concerned the disappearance of a Tamil youth from the North, the State was asked to reform its laws and practices to little avail. Whether the crime concerned an enforced disappearance or outright killing as was the case in the 2006 executions of the students in Trincomalee and the aid workers in Mutur, there are familiar features of state impunity. Common to all these cases, the investigation commenced only after considerable time had lapsed, information on orders that may have been given to the low ranking officers regarding their role in the relevant operations were not forthcoming and the chain of command went disregarded. Even if momentarily arrested, suspects were allowed to roam free on bail and engaged in intimidating family members of victims. In regard to the 2006 killings however, remarkably, not even a single suspect was arrested for well over seven years. The recent arrest of special task force personnel in the Trincomalee case is farcical as the perpetrators had been easily identifiable for years. Why is the Udalagama report not released? Meanwhile, the judicial inquiry and forensic investigations into the Mutur executions were characterised by typically grave flaws. These include the transfer of the case from the Magistrate of Mutur to the Magistrate of Anuradhapura (for which differing reasons were given by state officials), the drawbacks in the preservation of the scene of crime and the chain of custody being broken. The commitment of the government in pursuing this investigation was at best, lackadaisical. For example, were the records of the ongoing military operations in Mutur in 2006 accessed or produced for public scrutiny? Were detention records or information relating to the cordon and search operation adduced? Was important information provided by parties and not followed up by government investigators? And most importantly why is the Government so determined not to publish the report of the 2006 Udalagama Commission which looked into these cases in some detail before it was unceremoniously wound up by the administration? The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommended the release of this report. But this is one recommendation which is studiously being ignored to date. Dancing for international consumption In sum, it must be reiterated that the law by itself, as a theoretical value, has limited meaning. Indeed, in countries such as Sri Lanka where the law has been twisted and manipulated to victimize innocents, it has acquired a far sinister meaning. The utilization of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA, 1979) for purposes that are completely contrary to its purpose is a good

enough example. Even after the Government continued to boast that the emergency regime had lapsed, it expanded the PTA and used it to devastating effect against critics of the government. So as this administrations policy makers feverishly dance to bring in amendments to the archaic Penal Code to stave off international scrutiny and protests that it will sufficiently investigate and prosecute the 2006 Trincomalee and Mutur killings, let it be said clearly that no one is fooled. We can only watch and wait.

Columns
Pillays visit: Setting the R2P machinery in motion?
From the sidelines By Lasanda Kurukulasuriya View(s): 204

In the past week the Government of Sri Lanka laid out the red carpet for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay, with the customary hospitality accorded to visiting foreign dignitaries. She could go wherever she wanted and meet whoever she wished, according to the Presidents Human Rights Envoy, Minister Mahinda Samarasingha, who said we have nothing to hide. It remains to be seen if the ministers expectations of an impartial report from her will be met, when she addresses the 24th session of the UN Human Rights Council scheduled to start September 9. In the aftermath of the war, visiting foreign delegations that came to criticise often ended their tours observing that what they saw was not as bad as they had been led to believe. Pillay herself said on arrival last Sunday that she did not come to criticise, but to raise human rights concerns. She said she did not write her own statute. But its useful to remember her remarks shortly after the May 2009 Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council, where Sri Lanka successfully defeated a Swiss-EU resolution calling for an investigation into possible war crimes, and the Council instead adopted by a wide margin of votes a counter resolution proposed by Sri Lanka and Non Aligned states that stressed the countrys right to act without outside interference. Pillay at that time continued to insist on an independent international probe into the conduct of the war, seemingly in defiance of the verdict of her own Council. Earlier, a UN deputy spokesperson Marie Okabe was quoted saying that The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, while noting that the Human Rights Council will not agree to set up an inquiry at this point, says that an international inquiry could still happen further down the line. Under pressure from the same groups that initiated the attempt to pass a hostile resolution in 2009, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon next year appointed a Panel of Experts who advised him that an international investigation mechanism was required for Sri Lanka. Ban said such a move would require either the host countrys consent or a decision from member states through an intergovernmental forum. This referred to the UN Security Council, the General Assembly of the Human Rights Council. Those pressing for this move could not hope to garner the required votes through either the Security Council or the General Assembly, and so the push to put Sri Lanka in the dock over alleged war crimes remains in the more politicised forum of the HRC. Two US-led resolutions against Sri Lanka were adopted by the Council in 2012 and 2013.

The texts of these resolutions while calling upon Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) nevertheless attached only limited value to that report and its recommendations. At their core they seemed to be about accountability, and their anticipated end, a war crimes inquiry. Complying with the 2013 resolutions requirement, High Commissioner Pillay reported on Sri Lanka to the 22nd session of the Human Rights Council in February. She concluded her address by repeating the call for an independent and credible international investigation into alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, which could also monitor any domestic accountability process. The question arises as to whether that monitoring activity has already been set in motion with her visit. In a withering critique of the 2013 Human Rights Council resolution (Daily Mirror, 17.04.13) Tamara Kunanayakam who was Sri Lankas UN Ambassador in Geneva in 2012 claimed that it advanced the implacable logic of the responsibility to protect. R2P as it is known is applicable to four specified crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Pointing to the dangers of treating the resolution as harmless, Kunanayakam argued that accountability is only a pretext for Washington to advance its geopolitical interests in the region. This focus on accountability is not motivated by a genuine belief that there can be no reconciliation without it, but because accountability is the pillar upon which the Responsibility to Protect stands. she said. .The resolution sets in motion the monitoring component of the international investigation mechanism, the mandate is assigned to OHCHR. She demonstrates how all three elements of this still debated concept are contained in the latest resolution: 1) The primary responsibility of the state to protect its populations; 2) the responsibility of the international community to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility; and 3) the responsibility of the international community to protect in a timely and decisive manner when the State is unable or unwilling to do so, through appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means, including coercive military intervention. Kunanayakam says The logic pursued is that if there is no accountability for past crimes, impunity for present crimes will continue and give rise to similar crimes in the future, which, in turn, justifies external intervention to ensure that the population is protected from future crimes. In relation to the implementation of LLRC recommendations Pillay told President Mahinda Rajapaksa that she was very pleased about the establishment of a commission to look into war-time disappearances and the decision to recognise disappearances as a crime, according to a statement from the Presidents Media Unit. But her apparent support of the war crimes lobby whose outcry rests largely on the dubious evidence and unnamed sources of the Channel 4 documentaries and the UNSGs Panel of Experts report, is still a cause for concern. Whether her visit has altered her perceptions on this issue is not known. Kunanayakam exposes how the two US-led resolutions are meticulously structured to build up a case for R2P. If her analysis is accurate and there is good reason to believe so then there is further cause for concern that the OHCHRs action is sharply focused on alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. There appears to be a lack of clarity about the applicability of these laws in situations of armed conflict. Some studies say non-state parties are not bound by international human rights law, and have no obligation to apply it themselves. If that is the case, how balanced can an

investigation into alleged violations of those laws be, in a case such as Sri Lankas? The LTTE was not only a non-state party but one of the worlds deadliest terrorist organisations. Would the international investigation that Washington and its allies seek, be one where the LTTE remains beyond the pale, making the inquiry an entirely one sided affair? Is this as ridiculous as it gets?