The US Embassy in Colombo called for Sri Lanka act swiftly against perpetrators of communal violence and bring the State of Emergency to an end.

In a statement released shortly after Sri Lanka declared a state of emergency, the embassy in Colombo said,  

“Rule of law, human rights and equality are essential for peaceful coexistence. It is important that the Government of Sri Lanka act quickly against perpetrators of sectarian violence, protect religious minorities and their places of worship, and conclude the State of Emergency swiftly, while protecting human rights and basic freedoms for all.”

The Sri Lankan government’s own commission into the last stages of the war has commenced its sittings. The eight member panel has heard from civilians, government officials, politicians and mandarins, with many more due to appear before it in the future. Even as the panel was announced, many months ago, many international commentators rushed to question the validity of the panel and the authority, authenticity and reliability of any findings it may make, with comments like “no reason to believe this is any more serious than the previous commissions” (Robert Templar, ICG) and the lack of faith in the government’s capacity to investigate its own actions. Even local rights activists were skeptical, mentioning the “big gap between the words and deeds of the government” on human rights (Jehan Perara, NPC) and calling it a “cynical gesture” that is no substitute for a UN investigation (M.C.M Iqbal, two-time Secretary to Presidential Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances in Sri Lanka). Why then would Sri Lanka proceed with the panel? 

There are many plausible explanations for proceeding with the panel. To begin with, let us dismiss the possibility that Sri Lanka is serious about the panel serving as a vehicle to rectify the structural flaws in the country and bring about reconciliation. As numerous other commentators have pointed out, there is no indication that Sri Lanka is willing – or able – to make the fundamental mindset changes needed to establish the kind of liberal order that is the only kind acceptable in today’s world. While countries like China can restrict political freedoms, Sri Lanka is not China, and it is unwilling to even allow the economic freedoms equally to all the country’s citizens that China has allowed its people. And as Jehan Perara has noted, the gap between words and deeds on the part of the Sri Lankan government is huge indeed. Thus to the question of why Sri Lanka is proceeding with it Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission even as the panel is dismissed. What Sri Lanka faces in the near future is the kind of international scrutiny it has never been exposed to previously, and no trumped up panel of inquiry in going to be able to assist the country in dodging that bullet.

The remainder of this article sets out three plausible explanations for why Sri Lanka is proceeding with the panel, before demonstrating why each can only ever be (at best) partially successful. These are not mutually exclusive explanations and indeed, the reality is probably that a little of each played a role in the decision to proceed. But they are presented discretely here so as to lay out the arguments for each. The first explanation for Sri Lanka proceeding with the lessons learnt panel despite it already being dismissed by significant international actors is that some ‘friends’ of the government have told it such a panel is an essential step to reconciliation and necessary to show that the reconciliation process is genuine. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is seen by these ‘friends’ as the model Sri Lanka needs to follow in order to demonstrate its intention to achieve a lasting peace and reconciliation on the island. That some international news media are covering the panels sittings (almost religiously) is indication that some in the international community are prepared to pretend the commission has legitimacy it in reality does not have. These friends seek to dig Sri Lanka out of the hole the country has ended up in once the end of the war with the Liberation Tigers exposed the illiberal practices and ideologies that had always been at the heart of Sri Lanka. Part of the driver for this is selfish on the part of those friends – those friends are among those who encouraged others in the international community to follow certain policies that rewarded the Sri Lankan government and punished the LTTE even when it was obvious the issues were not that clear cut – but part of it is because those friends are aware that a truly felt reconciliation is the only way forward for peace in Sri Lanka and they still choose to believe that the Sri Lankan state (as it is currently structured) is capable of taking the necessary steps towards that reconciliation.

A second possible explanation for why Sri Lanka is proceeding with the panel is that such a step preempts an international enquiry and could rule out the possibility of one. Under international covenants and treaties, an international enquiry is not possible if the state in question can demonstrate that it is capable of conducting its own investigations. The issues of capacity and willingness are of course subjective judgments, and the comments by international observers show that despite Sri Lanka’s claims to capacity and willingness, many are not willing to accept these assurances. By proceeding with its own commission however, Sri Lanka has gone beyond the promise of an inquiry and actually initiated one, thereby strengthening it arguments about willingness and capacity. Further, the panel is due to present its report to the President by 15 November 2010, thereby possibly (probably) preempting the beginning of any international commissions. Thus, by enacting this panel – however vague or weak it may be – the Sri Lankan state is hoping to have done enough to rule out the possibility of an international investigation into allegations of war crimes.

The third, and perhaps most relevant explanation for Sri Lanka continuing with its own panel of inquiry is that through the process, Sri Lanka is able to modulate the picture of the country that is presented to the world – i.e. it is a public relations exercise. The early press reports about the commission alone show what kind of whitewashing is planned. Firstly, it will be argued that the Sri Lanka state has demonstrated its ability to respond to the concerns of the international community and indeed go further – while the international calls have been for an investigation into the last phase of the war (i.e. 2008/9) the Sri Lankan panel is looking at the period from 2002 to 2009. Thus, the government hopes to show a state that listens to international concerns and responds accordingly. Also, the members of the panel come from the Sinhalese, Muslim and Tamil communities – an attempt to deny the reality of institutional racism in the country. Just as one swallow does not a summer make, or the existence of a female national leader does not mean there is no sexism in the country, the structural discrimination in Sri Lanka cannot be negated by presence of a few token Tamils and Muslims on the panel. But to a state that has to date been able to rely on style over substance in the past, this must seem like an easy way to blunt what it sees as criticisms from enemies.

The panel has also been set a relatively short reporting timeframe – it is due to report by 15 November 2010. This can be spun as a government responding to international pressure – being a good global citizen – but as many observers have noted, the findings of the panel are so irrelevant to how Sri Lanka proceeds that the timing was irrelevant anyway. Further, while the panel is based in Colombo, hearings are being held across the North and East as well. This, the state hopes, will demonstrate that the panel is genuine in carrying out its mission – after all it is willing to go to the people and thus access evidence from those ho perhaps cannot afford to travel to the capital. Also, those who appear before the panel have been promised anonymity if required. The commission chairman allegedly told the BBC that “no one needs to fear testifying, as secrecy and anonymity can be guaranteed”.

This suggests a desire to protect those who might give evidence against persons in power, so as to ensure accurate and honest accounts are provided by those appearing before the panel. While not challenging the sincerity of the individual members, nevertheless this false integrity cannot be accepted at face value. In a country where the police and armed forces are implicated in most of the human rights abuses, any sensible observer has to question what kind of protection can be provided by the state. Further, the panel having sittings in towns across the north and east is noteworthy, but its value has to be questioned given the large number of those impacted by the last phase of the war still living in camps (from which a journey to appear before the panel cannot be hidden) or the extreme poverty of those who have left the camps only to be ‘returned’ to their homes in the far flung corners of the north and east with no access to basic facilities, let alone transport.  

Finally, the reports of evidence provided at the initial hearings also contribute to the picture of Sri Lanka the country’s PR agencies are hoping to modify. While there have been reports of ‘white van’ disappearances, most have been unable to ‘prove’ involvement by the military or police, even though informally many (if not all) in Sri Lanka know who is behind most disappearances and to whom they pay the ransom demands. Similar accusations that the military has ‘disappeared’ suspected former combatants cannot not be proven by those who make them, according to press reports. “Others said they believed the military was holding their husbands, who had previously worked with the Tamil Tigers, but they lacked clear information,” reported the BBC after the first week of hearings.

Thus, Sri Lanka has extremely plausible reasons for proceeding with it Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation panel. But to those who are aware of the island’s history and its structural constitution, these reasons are not sufficient. This panel should not be allowed to serve its purpose of thwarting justice or of washing the blood off the hands of the Sri Lankan state and its representatives.

Similar to the Sinhalicisation of Trincomalee, the capital of the East, Colombo plans for a new, Sinhalicised capital for the North at Kilinochchi, administrative sources working for Colombo on the project said.

Kilinochchi is being prepared for that with an extensive military cantonment with permanent houses for military personnel, cultivation lands for them, an airstrip at Iranaimadu, new Buddhist temples and by not allowing the local population to their lands.

For every three people there is one military personnel at present. When resettled, the local Tamils will be herded into pockets and there will be a new population, considerably Sinhalicised, the sources said adding that with the completion of the plot, there won’t be even one city or administrative centre existing for Tamils in the island.

Colombo announced Thursday that its decision to hold cabinet meetings at provincial level will be first demonstrated at Kilinochchi, next month.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka’s army commander Jagath Jayasuriya and other military top brass who visited the Buddhist prelate of the Mahasangha’s Asgiriya Chapter, assured him that the establishment of permanent camps for security forces in the ‘liberated North and East’ were well in progress, The Island said Saturday.

The farms and land, which were under the LTTE, were now taken over by the government and were made use of for ‘development’ projects, the army chief told the Mahanayaka Thero adding that the security forces in the permanent camps are provided with all the basic facilities to make life comfortable for them.

According to Sri Lanka Army website, the SLA Commander told both the prelates of the Malwatte and Asgiriya chapters of Maha Sangha that "army personnel arriving in those areas for duty are to be provided permanent houses and allowed to engage in cultivation work if they so desire. A large segment of the Army, including the Engineer Services are constructing highways, bridges, houses, factories, etc in those areas and this will save a lot of money for the government."

The prelate, pleased with what is going on in the North and East, stressed on maximum facilities to the forces of occupation and told the army commander of the need to protect the country’s land from ‘several other groups’ that are funded by foreign countries to purchase land and expand their population in the island.

Having permanent houses, cultivation lands and seeking women to have progeny, Sri Lanka will be having a new kind of 'ethnicised army' of colonisation in the Tamil homeland, concerned Tamil circles commented.

This is what the 'political solution' enacted by the powers and 'Strategic Partners' by tilting the security balance of Tamils, they further said.

Sri Lanka has refused to comply with European Union conditions for the extending of GSP+ trade concessions, calling them ‘insulting’.

The EU had called on Sri Lanka to provide written confirmation by July 1 that the country was willing to comply with 15 human rights related conditions in order for the trade concessions to be extended by another 6 months.

Sri Lanka criticised the EU's warning to withdraw the trade benefits, with the foreign ministry in Colombo complaining that Europe was setting "unattainable targets".

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa is reported to have rejected the demand at a Cabinet meeting, saying he would not compromise the country’s sovereignty for the sake of the US$ 150 million by which amount the country would benefit under the GSP + facility, reported the Daily Mirror.   

The President stated that the EU had no right to interfere in the matters of a sovereign state, reported the Sunday Leader.

He is reported to have declared the conditions to be related to “internal political matters” with “no relevance whatsoever to international trade”. 

"This is more dictatorial than how the colonial rulers of the past treated us," said Economic Development Minister and Senior Presidential Advisor Basil Rajapaksa.

"We cannot be bullied into submission. We can stand on our own and resist these conditions," he told the Sunday Times.

The President was also quoted as having told the Cabinet that Sri Lanka does not need the GSP+ concession, even though it is estimated that 100,000 workers will be directly affected if the agreement is not extended.

External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris echoed the President’s reassurance that Sri Lanka could manage without the concession. “The garment industry is strong. When the quota period ended, many speculated that this would be the end of the industry. But, we were resilient. We have creativity and entrepreneurship; the resilience to adapt and create ways in which we can increase productivity and revenue,” he told a press conference.

Government spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella said the government would arrange an alternate scheme to ensure Sri Lankan exporters do not lose competitiveness.

Peiris also informed a press meet that it was not the role of the EU to interfere in the sovereignty of Sri Lanka and that the country cannot accept the conditions put forward by the EU.

“To fulfill the conditions they are asking of us, we would have to change the constitution and brush aside the decisions of the highest court in the country,” he was quoted by the Sunday Leader as saying. “We cannot surrender our decision making power to a foreign government. I don’t think even the public will agree to this or ask us to fulfil these conditions”.

"These conditions are unacceptable. They are an insult to every citizen of this country," Rambukwella told reporters in Colombo. "We must put the EU demand in the dustbin."

The EU wanted Sri Lanka to relax some of the provisions of its draconian Prevention of Terrorism law, which was not possible, AFP quoted Rambukwella as saying. He reportedly added that the EU conditions affected internal security.

Peiris reportedly told the Sri Lankan Cabinet that Denmark and Spain took a rigid stand against Sri Lanka while Italy supported the country on this issue at the EU, the Daily Mirror said.

According to the paper, the German Ambassador and the British High Commissioner had informed Peiris that their countries were not in favour of the EU decision. 

Initially, media reports in Sri Lanka, citing government sources, in mid June claimed that the European Union had agreed to extend the GSP+ tariff concessions for a further 6 months beyond the initial cancellation date of August 15.

The reports drew a strong response from the EU, which said, "contrary to these articles, the date of 15 August on which Sri Lanka would cease to benefit from GSP Plus will not be extended unconditionally."

The EU's executive arm, the European Commission, insisted on "significant improvements on the effective implementation of the human rights conventions" for the island to continue enjoying the trade benefits.

Sri Lanka had sent two senior delegations to Brussels in March and May this year to try and negotiate the EU decision to withdraw the GSP+ concessions. While the delegations had had several meetings with EU representatives, they were unable to get the decision changed.

Following the delegations, EC Vice President Catherine Ashton wrote a two page letter to Peiris, saying "……following an assessment of the meeting with Attorney General Peiris on May 20-21 and of the further information which your Government has supplied, it is not yet possible to conclude that Sri Lanka is, at this time, effectively implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention against Torture."

The letter adds, "The European Commission notes the clear willingness on the part of Sri Lanka to take further additional steps to address without delay outstanding human rights issues and stands ready to work with you on this. We are prepared to propose to the Council of the European Union that it decides to maintain GSP Plus preferences for a limited additional period subject to a clear commitment by your Government to undertake the actions listed in the annexe to this letter within a six months time frame beginning July of this year.

The Generalised System of Preference (GSP) is a trade agreement in which the European Union gives 176 countries and territories, preferential access to the EU market.

By reducing the tariff on goods entering the market, the EU’s main priority is to reduce poverty and promote sustainable development and good governance. There is no expectation or requirement that this form of access is reciprocated.

Under GSP+, Sri Lanka receives, among 15 other countries, additional benefits, which can be withdrawn if the EU finds that the country does not respect the criteria for eligibility.

The agreement, which is subject to renewal every three years, places emphasis on human rights and labour laws within the country.

Sri Lanka has hugely benefited by the opportunities offered by GSP+, especially in the clothing and fisheries sector. In 2008, the imports to EU from Sri Lanka totalled 1.24 billion Euros.  

Sri Lanka gains about 150 million dollars annually due to preferential tariffs, according to business estimates.

These benefits will be withdrawn on August 15 unless Sri Lanka makes a written commitment by July 1, according to the EU. 

The following are the conditions set by the European Commission for a 6 month extension of the GSP+ benefit to Sri Lanka, with the proviso that Sri Lanka had to provide written commitment to these conditions by July 1.

1.) Reduction of the number of derogations to the ICCPR.

2.) Take steps to ensure that the key objective of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, namely to provide for independent and impartial appointments to the key public positions, is fully safeguarded, including through a Constitutional Council which adequately reflects the interests of all political, ethnic and religious groups and minorities within Sri Lankan society.

3.) Repeal of the remaining part of the 2005 Emergency Regulations, notably those Regulations concerning detention without trial, restrictions on freedom of movement, ouster of jurisdiction and immunity and repeal of 2006 Emergency Regulations (Gazette No. 1474/5/2006). If GoSL considers that it is essential to retain certain provisions which are compatible with the ICCPR or UNCAT, such as provisions concerning possession of weapons, such provisions should be transferred to the Criminal Code.

4.) Repeal of those sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act which are incompatible with the ICCPR (in particular, sections 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 26) or amendment so as to make them clearly compatible with the ICCPR.

5.) Repeal of the ouster clause in section 8 and the immunity clause in section 9 of the Public Security Ordinance or amendment or as to make it clearly compatible with the ICCPR.

6.) Adoption of the planed amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide for the right of a suspect to see a lawyer immediately following his arrest.

7.) Legislative steps necessary to allow individuals to submit complaints to the UN Human Rights Committee under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and to the UN Committee against Torture under Article 22.

8.) Steps to implement outstanding opinions of the UN Human Rights Committee in individual cases.

9.) Extension of an invitation to the following Special Procedures who have requested to visit Sri Lanka (UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers).

10.) Responses to a significant number of individual cases currently pending before the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.

11.) Publication of the complete final report of the 2008 Commission of Enquiry.

12.) Publication or making available to the family members a list of the former LTTE combatants currently held in detention as well as all other persons detained under the Emergency Regulations. Decisive steps to bring to an end the detention of any persons under the Emergency Regulations either by releasing them or by bringing them to trial.

13.)  Granting of access to all places of detention for monitoring purposes to an independent humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

14.) Adoption of the National human Rights Action Plan by Parliament and its prompt implementation.

15.)  Take steps to ensure journalists can exercise their professional duties without harassment.

Samantha Power, Director of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the National Security Council in the Obama administration, David Pressman, Director for war crimes atrocities and civilian protection of the US National Security Council, and Ms. Patricia A Butenis, Ambassador of the US in Sri Lanka, met with Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse on June 15.

Dr. Power won a Pulitzer for "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," her book about America's response to genocide. In the book she argues that American foreign policy in this area has failed; we promised "never again" after the Holocaust but wilfully ignored genocides in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, and Rwanda. She was a key player in starting the Save Darfur movement.

Dr. Power, an academic with expertise in genocide, has been conspicuously silent until now on foreign policy matters. Observers attribute the silence to her marriage and the onset of pregnancy during the critical period when mass slaughter is alleged to have taken place in Sri Lanka in early 2009.

However, a spokesperson for the US-based activist group Tamils Against Genocide (TAG) told TamilNet last month, “the visit of Samantha Power and Mr Pressman to Sri Lanka amidst increasing calls by international community for war crimes investigations in Sri Lanka is very significant.”

Dr. Power has been an outspoken critic of the western institutions and the past US Governments for inaction and empty rhetoric against rights violations and crimes amounting to genocide, crimes very similar to what Sri Lanka has allegedly committed against Tamil civilians, TAG said.

“Unlike politically motivated visits taken by UN Officials, this visit [by Dr. Power] should be seen as a serious development inside the US administration on its internal war-crimes investigations. Also, Tamil expatriates are waiting to see if Power lives by her words in Problem from Hell, or has herself succumbed to the force of political expediency.”

Dr. Power’s book, titled "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide” was awarded the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction, the 2003 National Book Critics Circle Award for general nonfiction, and the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Prize for the best book in U.S. foreign policy.

The US Embassy in Colombo issued a short statement, titled “Senior White House Officials Visiting Sri Lanka.” It stated:

“Two senior foreign policy advisors to President Obama are visiting Sri Lanka from June 14-18. Samantha Power, Special Assistant to the President on Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights and David Pressman, National Security Council Director for War Crimes and Atrocities, will meet with senior government officials and members of civil society in Colombo, Jaffna, and Batticaloa. The visit aims to continue last month’s productive dialogue between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris, in which both leaders discussed Sri Lanka’s path through economic renewal, accountability, and reconciliation to greater peace, prosperity, and a stronger partnership with the United States.”

President Rajapakse’s office meanwhile claimed of the US officials meeting: “The meeting was cordial and friendly and both sides discussed matters of mutual interest.”

The redevelopment of the North is a major focus of all international efforts to rebuild Sri Lanka now that the war has been deemed over, but the Sri Lankan approach to development has been the also termed exploitation.

The resources of the North are being exported to enrich the south, at the expense of the Tamils, reports of activities from the region said.

The Manniththalai sandbar is being demolished as sand from the region is exported, to the benefit of Sinhalese operators from the South.

Manniththalai, a roughly 25 km long sandbar, extends towards the Jaffna Peninsula from Poonakari in the main island.It was a major route of communication between the Peninsula and the main island since ancient times until early 19th century and is dotted with archaeological remains ranging from microlithic / megalithic times to the times of the Dutch, covered by huge sand dunes.

As sand deposits in the Jaffna peninsula in places such as Mankumpaan, Ariyaalai, Manatkaadu are depleted the Manniththalai sandbar is targeted now, reports suggested.

Each lorry load of sand costing 11,000 rupees is sold for 44,000 in the black market. As an average, 40 lorries are engaged each day in the business in the Manatkaadu in Vadamaraadchi.

In early June, Namal Rajapaksa, son of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, along with a Hindi film actor Vivek Oberoi and Minister Douglas Devananda, visited the sandbar, and announced the opening of a communication route through the sandbar.

Namal Rajapaksa is keen in generating income through ferry services to the sandbar, earlier news reports said. He is also now deligated to receive all illegal income locally generated in Vanni.

The sand trade in Jaffna is dominated by a leading businessman associated with Douglas Devananda.

In addition to sand, pre-historic layers of gravel deposits in the Vanni region are also scooped out indiscriminately. The natural resources indiscriminately exploited are also used in the 'construction' works of the Sri Lankan military in Vanni and in Vavuniya, TamilNet reported.

Meanwhile, limestone quarried in the Jaffna peninsula, seriously threatening the groundwater and environment, is sent to the cement factory in Galle in the South.

Threatening the entire groundwater and fragile ecology of Jaffna peninsula, a private Sinhalese company is engaged in the illegal excavation of limestone in the High Security Zone (HSZ) in Valikaamam North while the Rajapaksa government refuses to reveal details of this enterprise.

This is occurring in the area from Maaviddapuram to Keerimalai where the uprooted residents have not been allowed to resettle for the past twenty years.

The indiscriminate excavation of limestone in a 4 sq km area at depths of nearly 40 feet has already caused seepage of sea water and it is feared the area is becoming submerged, press reports said.

The Jaffna Peninsula depends largely on the limestone bed for the preservation of rainwater into groundwater.

The underground channels that bring in freshwater to the innumerable aquifers of the peninsula, have an underneath entry into sea adjacent to the locality of the quarries and indiscriminate quarrying and the possibility of seawater coming inside can affect the potable water of the masses.

Reports suggest that 30 percent of the groundwater in the peninsula has become saline in recent times due to various reasons.

A private company, ‘V. V. Karunaratne’ from the South, has installed heavy machinery including crushers in the above militarised HSZ where limestone is dug out, crushed and sent to a cement factory in Galle in South.

Hundreds of Southern Sinhalese labourers are engaged in excavating lime stone in Valikaamam North where its residents had been evicted by SLA, Jaffna MP, Appathurai Vinayagamoorthy who visited the place said in a press meet held in Jaffna 27 May 2010.

The excavated limestone is taken to the cement factories in Galle in ships and via A9 road.

October 2008-2009 – EU investigates Sri Lanka’s commitment to the human rights requirements to receive GSP+ trade concessions and finds that the country had significant shortcomings with regard to three covenants; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). These three, among 27 international conventions are essential qualifying criteria for GSP+.

February 2010 – EU member states decide to withdraw GSP+ for Sri Lanka stating that the country had not followed through with three UN human rights conventions that were relevant to receive benefits from the scheme.

March 2010 – Sri Lanka sends a delegation to Brussels to negotiate the GSP+ withdrawal

May 2010 – The senior Sri Lankan delegation, including P. B. Jayasundara, Romesh Jayasinghe and Mohan Peiris, makes a second visit to Brussels and has several meetings with EU representatives.

17 June 2010 – Lady Katherine Ashton (EU’s Foreign Policy Commissioner) sends Sri Lanka a letter stating that the GSP+ concession could be extended for an additional 6 months, subject to a clear, written commitment by the Sri Lankan Government to carry out the 15 conditions attached to the letter.

23 June 2010 – Sri Lankan Cabinet unequivocally rejects EU conditions in reports to the media 

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is providing Sri Lanka with financial assistance to rehabilitate roads in the conflict-affected northern region, which will help spur inclusive growth and new economic opportunities in one of the poorest regions in the country.

In mid June, the ADB Board of Directors approved loans of $154.4 million from ADB's ordinary capital resources and concessionary Asian Development Fund for the Northern Road Connectivity Project. It will also provide a technical assistance grant of $500,000 to support agencies that manage and maintain the roads.

During nearly three decades of civil conflict, Northern Province was one of the worst affected regions, with its road network falling into total disrepair as a result of damage and neglect. People were unable to get goods to market, or access basic social services, and long travel times have seen the region become increasingly isolated from the south of the country.

The project will carry out civil works on 140 kilometers of provincial roads in Mannar and Vavuniya districts, including those linking settlements to markets, as well as major feeder roads connecting towns and villages. Another 170 kilometers of national roads will be rehabilitated, helping link the north to city centers in the south. The improved surfacing and widening will help cut travel time and costs, revitalizing travel between the north and south.

“The project is targeted to meet one of the most urgent needs of the conflict-affected population in the north – connectivity and mobility. It will facilitate access to essential social services, help resume livelihood activities, and revitalize transport of goods and peoples between the country's northern and southern regions,” said Dong-Kyu Lee, Transport Specialist in ADB’s South Asia Department.

Of the two loans, ADB will provide $130 million from its ordinary capital resources with a 25-year term, five-year grace period, and interest determined in accordance with its LIBOR-based lending facility. The Asian Development Fund loan of $24.4 million equivalent has a 32-year term, including a grace period of eight years, with interest charged at 1% per annum during the grace period and 1.5% for the rest of the term. The government will provide assistance of $18.6 million, for a total project cost of $173 million.

The grant of $500,000 from ADB’s Technical Assistance Special Fund will be used to strengthen the capacity of the Northern Provincial Council-Northern Provincial Road Development Department to manage and maintain the road network. Additional technical assistance support of $60,000 equivalent will come from the two provincial agencies.

The Ministry of Highways for the national roads component and the Ministry of Local Government and Provincial Councils for the provincial roads component, respectively, are the executing agencies, for the project which is due for completion around June 2015.

The cry of “never again,” raised by so many in the years after the end of the Holocaust 1945, has rung increasingly hollow with the passing decades, Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, protested in an op-ed Friday in the International Herald Tribune. “The Holocaust remains unique … but instances of genocide and large-scale brutality have continued to multiply — from Cambodia to the Congo, from Bosnia to Rwanda, from Sri Lanka to Sudan,” he said. “It is surprisingly hard to find education programs that have clearly succeeded in linking the history of the Holocaust with the prevention of ethnic conflict and genocide in today’s world.”

Mr. Annan is honorary president of the advisory board for the Holocaust Education and Genocide Prevention Program at the Salzburg Global Seminar

The full text of his op-ed, titled “Myth of ‘never again’”, follows:

Many countries in Europe and North America now require all high-school pupils to learn about the Holocaust. Why? Because of its historical importance, of course, but also because, in our increasingly diverse and globalized world, educators and policy-makers believe Holocaust education is a vital mechanism for teaching students to value democracy and human rights, and encouraging them to oppose racism and promote tolerance in their own societies.

That was certainly my assumption in 2005 when, as U.N. secretary general, I urged the General Assembly to pass a resolution on Holocaust Remembrance, which included a call for “measures to mobilize civil society for Holocaust remembrance and education, in order to help to prevent future acts of genocide.”

Indeed it might seem almost self-evident that Holocaust education would have that purpose, and that effect. Yet it is surprisingly hard to find education programs that have clearly succeeded in linking the history of the Holocaust with the prevention of ethnic conflict and genocide in today’s world.

Of course, prevention is always difficult to prove. But the least one can say is that the cry of “never again,” raised by so many in the years after 1945, has rung increasingly hollow with the passing decades. The Holocaust remains unique in its combination of sophisticated technical and organizational means with the most ruthlessly vicious of ends, but instances of genocide and large-scale brutality have continued to multiply — from Cambodia to the Congo, from Bosnia to Rwanda, from Sri Lanka to Sudan.

Few countries at present, even among those that require their teachers to teach the Holocaust, give them any specific training or guidance on how to do so. And few teachers in any country have the knowledge or skills to teach the Holocaust in a way that would enable today’s adolescents, who often represent within a single classroom a wide variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, to relate it to the tensions they encounter in their own lives. More and better teacher training is surely needed.

But do we know what the content of that training should be?

If our goal in teaching students about the Holocaust is to make them think harder about civic responsibility, human rights and the dangers of racism, then presumably we need to connect the Holocaust with other instances of genocide, and with ethnic conflicts or tensions in our own time and place. That would enable students not only to learn about the Holocaust, but also to learn important lessons from it.

The time has surely come to ask some hard questions about “traditional” Holocaust education, and perhaps to rethink some of the assumptions on which it has been based. Are programs focusing on the Nazi system and ideology, and particularly on the horrendous experience of their millions of victims, an effective response to, or prophylactic against, the challenges we face today?

It is easy to identify with the victims. But if we want to prevent future genocides, is it not equally important to understand the psychology of the perpetrators and bystanders — to comprehend what it is that leads large numbers of people, often “normal” and decent in the company of their own family and friends, to suppress their natural human empathy with people belonging to other groups and to join in, or stand by and witness, their systematic extermination? Do we not need to focus more on the social and psychological factors that lead to these acts of brutality and indifference, so that we know the warning signs to look out for in ourselves and our societies?

Do current education programs do enough to reveal the dangers inherent in racial or religious stereotypes and prejudices, and to inoculate students against them? Does the teaching of the history of the Holocaust at classroom level sufficiently link it to the root causes of contemporary racism or ethnic conflict? And shouldn’t the Holocaust be studied not only in Europe, North America and Israel but throughout the world, alongside other tragic instances of human barbarism?

Such questions will be at the heart of a conference this month at the Salzburg Global Seminar, in Austria, on “The Global Prevention of Genocide: Learning from the Holocaust,” held in cooperation with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Organizers hope this will lead to an annual program for teachers from around the world.

This is certainly not a problem with a “one size fits all” solution. Teaching the Holocaust to a class in Ukraine is obviously different from teaching it in Israel, and indeed is likely to vary widely even between different districts of a European city. But insights and examples can surely be shared with advantage, and it seems fitting that Austria — which provided both victims and perpetrators of Nazi atrocities in abundance — should be hosting such a program.

They were jailed in Indonesia, stranded in Romania and rescued by Australia off the coast of Sumatra, all in the last eight months.

So it was a big relief to Nisanth Segaranantham and his friends when they landed in Oakland last month. The 27-year-old Sri Lankan refugee is savoring his freedom to roam the city, shop for his own groceries and look for a job.

"We can go anywhere, anytime, anyplace, no problem," he said.

Segaranantham was one of 78 Sri Lankans who crowded aboard an Indonesian fishing boat and set sail for Australia in October. As ethnic Tamils, they faced discrimination in Sri Lanka and hoped to find political asylum in Australia. But the ship began sinking on the way.

"We thought we were going to die," said Rajmohan Sivabalasundaram, 25. "We phoned to Australia, emergency section, and asked them to rescue us. More and more water was coming inside the boat. "... We tried to close the hole. Two times, we closed the hole."

Australia did send help — a customs patrol vessel called the Oceanic Viking. Once rescued, however, the Sri Lankans refused to get off the customs ship and demanded assurance Australia would welcome them to its shores. Some threatened to jump to their deaths in the Indian Ocean if they did not find refuge.

The result was a weeks-long diplomatic row between Indonesia and Australia, neither of which wanted to take custody of the migrants. So controversial was the impasse that it dented the popularity of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and fueled a war of words in the Parliament. A weak response, Rudd's critics said, would send hundreds more asylum-seekers sailing to Australia in rickety boats.

That controversy continues, but Segaranantham and Sivabalasundaram are not looking back. They are thrilled to be in the United States.

"I need a job and I want to study, learn English and study," Segaranantham said.

He and five other Sri Lankan refugees, all 20-something bachelors, arrived at Oakland in late May. Three of them had spent weeks last fall aboard the Oceanic Viking. Another was picked up by the Indonesian Navy in a separate boat rescue last year.

With the help of the International Rescue Committee, which contracts with the government to assist incoming refugees, they settled in two apartments in Oakland's San Antonio district and are quickly getting adjusted.

"We have to eat. So we learn how to cook," said Sivabalasundaram, who is mastering seafood dishes that remind his friends of family meals in Jaffna, their hometown in northern Sri Lanka.

They never intended to come to America, but their failed trip to Australia put them on a roundabout path to Oakland. At first, they thought Australian authorities would take them to Christmas Island. A remote prison complex there houses many of Australia's asylum-seekers.

Instead, after a month aboard the Oceanic Viking, they ended up in a detention center in the Indonesian port of Tanjung Pinang, where the United Nations refugee agency looked for places that would take them in. The United States accepted 28 refugees, granting them permanent legal residency in the country. Others were sent to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Europe. Those heading to North America spent several weeks waiting in a refugee camp in Romania, a transit point where international organizations determined their final destination.

"We searched San Francisco on Google. We thought it was a beautiful place, so beautiful," Sivabalasundaram said. "We'd like to stay here permanently. We don't like Sri Lanka."

Sri Lanka's 25-year-old civil war ended in May 2009, when government forces defeated the Tamil Tigers, whose rebel forces had waged a brutal guerrilla war to create a separate state. Tens of thousands of people died since fighting began in 1983.

Ethnic Tamils, who represent less than 20 percent of the Sri Lankan population but are a majority in the north, were often caught in the middle – especially young men suspected of being rebels. Humanitarian groups say they still face persecution.

"The government says the war has ended, but Tamil people did not get freedom," Sivabalasundaram said.

Of the six friends in Oakland, three lost their fathers to violence at an early age. One has a brother who disappeared five years ago. Segaranantham was 6 when he witnessed his father shot and killed at the family's grocery shop.

"At that time, so many Tamils were killed," he said. "So many of our friends have lost their fathers and elder brothers."

The East Bay is home to just a few hundred Sri Lankans today, but some of those here say they will welcome the refugees – even if their families were on opposite sides of the ethnic conflict back home.

"Almost everybody who's immigrated, who left the island since 1970, it wasn't directly because of the war, but that's a big part of it. It's really limited the opportunities," said Oakland rapper Ras Ceylon, 29, who was born in Los Angeles to Sri Lankan parents.

California is home to nearly one-third of the roughly 30,000 Sri Lankan immigrants in the United States, with most living in Southern California, according to census estimates. Many belong to Sri Lanka's ethnic Sinhalese majority. Even in a new country, Ceylon said, some Sinhalese still harbor negative feelings about Sri Lankan Tamils, and vice versa, divisions he believes are rooted in the British colonial occupation of the island.

Ceylon, whose real name is Sanjev Desilva, comes from a Sinhalese family but sympathizes with Tamil people who suffered because of the war. He said he wants to help out the Oakland refugees.

"There's 2,000 years of history of us living together peacefully," he said. "People are people."

An early historic inscription in Tamil language and in Tamil Brahmi script, dateable to c.200 BCE, has been found in the archaeological excavations by a German team at Tissamaharama in the south of the island of Sri Lanka.

The inscription deciphered by I. Mahadevan as ‘Thira’li Mu’ri,’ which means ‘written agreement of the assembly,’ was incised on an early historic Black and Red Ware pottery.

The last letter of the inscription, which is retroflex Tamil ‘Ri’, is very clearly a Tamil phoneme in Tamil Brahmi script, academics commented. The Tamil Brahmi inscription is also found mixed with megalithic or early historic graffiti marks, which were probably the symbols of the guild, they further said.

Tissamaharama or ancient Mahaagama is located close to Kathirkaamam (Kataragama), a famous pilgrim centre for Tamils as well as Sinhalese.

Prakrit and Tamil were the earliest written languages of South Asia. The first evidences in these languages, in phonetic writing, appear from c.3rd century BCE.

Sinhala as an identifiable language appears in inscriptions from c. 8– 9th century CE onwards.

The following is what Iravatham Mahadevan, doyen of the study of Tamil Brahmi, wrote on Tissamaharama potsherd inscription in The Hindu, Thursday:

“Tamils have been living in the northern and eastern parts of the island from time immemorial. Several small fragments of pottery with a few Tamil‐Brahmi letters scratched on them have been found from the Jaffna region. However, a much more sensational discovery is a pottery inscription from an excavation conducted at Tissamaharama on the southeastern coast of Sri Lanka. A fragment of a high‐quality black and red‐ ware flat dish inscribed in Tamil in the Tamil‐Brahmi script was found in the earliest layer. It was provisionally dated to around 200 BCE by German scholars who undertook the excavation. The inscription reads tiraLi muRi, which means “written agreement of the assembly” The inscription bears testimony to the presence in southern Sri Lanka of a local Tamil mercantile community organised in a guild to conduct maritime trade as early as at the close of the 3rd century BCE”.

Writing on “An Epigraphic perspective on the Antiquity of Tamil.” Mahadevan cited the American scholar Thomas Trautmann and said: “The three ‘fundamental discoveries’ in indological studies are the discovery of the Indo-European language family (1786); the discovery of the Dravidian language family (1816), and the discovery of the Indus civilization (1924). It is significant that two of the three ‘fundamental discoveries’ relate to the Dravidian, though the latest one is still being ‘debated’ for want of an acceptable decipherment of the Indus Script.”

Mahadevan continues: “Part of the problem in the delayed recognition accorded to Tamil in Indological studies was the non‐availability of really old literary texts and archaeological evidence for the existence of Tamil civilisation in ancient times. The critical editions of the earliest Tamil literary works of the Sangam Age, especially by U.V. Swaminathaiyar from 1887, have led to a radical reassessment of the antiquity and historicity of Tamil civilisation. What Swaminathiyar did for Tamil literature, K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer accomplished for Tamil epigraphy. He demonstrated (in 1924) that Tamil (and not Prakrit) was the language of the cave inscriptions of Tamil Nadu..”

Eelam Tamil academics sadly commenting on the repeated assertions of Mahadevan in giving exclusive credit to Swaminathaiyar for the publication of Changkam literature and not giving due credit to the efforts of Eelam Tamils, said scholars from Jaffna did the pioneering work decades before Swaminathaiyar.

The first ever Changkam text that saw the light of print was Thirumurukaattuppadai of Paththuppaaddu (one of The Ten Idylls), which was brought out by Arumuga Navalar of Jaffna in 1851.

The first of the Eight Anthologies (Edduththokai) of the Changkam classics that got printed was Kaliththokai (1887). This was brought out by C.W. Thamotharam Pillai of Jaffna, who was an old student of the Jaffna College and was a first graduate of the University of Madras.

Swaminathaiyar brought out his first edition of the Changkam classics Paththuppaaddu in 1889.

Earlier to bringing out Kaliththokai, Thamotharam Pillai started publishing post-Changkam classics such as Choo'laama'ni, Tholkaappiyam etc right from 1860's.

The book of V. Kanagasabai Pillai of Trincomalee, The Tamils 1800 Years Ago (1904), was the first major historical and social study on the Changkam Age, based on the classics.

The pioneering work of translating the Changkam classics into English, bringing the text to non-Tamil readers, was also done by Eelam Tamil scholars.

J V Chellaiah of Jaffna College did the entire translation of Paththuppaaddu in 1945. This was decades before A K Ramanujan or Hart translating parts of the Eight Anthologies.

Swami Vipulanandar of Batticaloa who made arrangement for the publication of Chellaiah’s translation painfully notes how the then Madras government or the Annamalai university didn’t give any help to the venture even though they admired the translation, and how he finally brought it out as a publication of the government press of then British Ceylon.  

In a brief but compelling interview with The Sunday Leader, UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial Executions, Philip Alston slammed a Sri Lanka government initiative, asserting the Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation will not focus or address human rights, humanitarian law, violations or war crimes.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: What are your views on the Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation?

A: Well, first of all, the Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation has not, as you suggest, been appointed to look into alleged war crimes.  As an article on the website of the Ministry of Defence summarises its purpose, it is “to find out the root causes of the terrorist problem”.  There is not a single mention of ‘human rights’, ‘humanitarian law’, ‘violations’, ‘war crimes’, or any comparable term. The mandate accorded by the government very carefully avoids any of these issues. Instead, the President has indicated that the commission should look forward, which is generally a way of saying that past violations should be ignored. Consistent with this, he has spoken of restorative justice designed to further strengthen national amity, which is another way of making the same point.

Q: What if the mandate were to be changed?

A: Even if the mandate were to be changed, the question would then be whether the commission meets international standards for a credible inquiry into alleged human rights violations.  A key issue here is whether an observer could consider the commissioners to be reasonably independent of the government. Here, again, the picture is not a very convincing one. The Chairman, Chitta Ranjan de Silva, is a former Attorney-General who oversaw that office when it was strongly criticized for having interfered with the independence and effectiveness of one of the government’s previous inquiry commissions (the still unpublished 2006 Presidential Commission of Inquiry). Including the chairman, six of the eight members are former senior government officials, several of whom have spent much of their time defending Sri Lanka in international forums. While the latter is a worthy endeavour, it does not tend to signal independence or impartiality when one is considering serious allegations directed against the government itself.

Q: What is your opinion of the procedures by which the commission will function?

A: The next issue concerns the procedures under which the commission will operate.  Chairman de Silva has stated that proceedings will not be public, and the government has made no commitment to making the findings and recommendations public. There is no indication that the commission will use the powers of law to sub poena all relevant witnesses and to obtain evidence from internal government sources. Overall, it is difficult to conclude that there are any conditions which are conducive to the production of an independent report, which would seriously and credibly address the very extensive allegations of war crimes that have been made.

Of course, the fact that any such crimes occurred, has consistently been denied by the government. Most recently, Sri Lanka told the Human Rights Council that they were “unsubstantiated, uncorroborated heresy”. But the detailed and deeply troubling allegations won’t magically disappear. Sri Lanka’s capacity to heal and forge a unified national identity which embraces all of its different ethnic groups will require a genuine examination of the past sooner or later.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has an unparalleled track record of ineffectual commissions of inquiry of this kind. Indeed, its history, especially since 1977 is littered with them. It is precisely because such inquiries have been utterly unconvincing, that they have not succeeded in drawing a line under the contentious issues of the past that need to be addressed before they can be transcended.

Q: But do you not think it only right that the government be left alone to conduct its own inquiry minus outside interference?

A: It is also interesting to contrast the government’s insistence in the UN Human Rights Council, that it should be left entirely alone to conduct its own inquiry, with its strong support for an international investigation into Israel’s killing of nine people in the raid on the Gaza flotilla carrying humanitarian aid. Sri Lanka apparently feels so strongly that international measures are needed in relation to Israel that its ambassador to the UN in New York is the chairman of the so-called group of three currently carrying out an international investigation into Israel’s activities.

I believe there are strong grounds for international action in both cases. I should add that one of the most problematic responses in terms of giving Sri Lanka its own space, in this matter, has been the suggestion by the Minister of Defence that any statement by General Fonseka on war crimes should be treated as treason and could thus lead to his being executed. If the objection is that Fonseka is not telling the truth, then let there be a public inquiry with the opportunity for all sides to present their evidence. Yet, for the government, this appears to be out of the question.

Instead, the very idea that any Sri Lankan could acknowledge that war crimes might have been committed, despite the fact that they have been reported by a wide range of other sources, is treated as a hanging offence. This approach does not bode well for the prospect of a genuine national inquiry into war crimes any time soon.