The Sri Lanka government is guilty of crimes against humanity, was the conclusion of a war-crimes tribunal, conducted by Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) based in Milan, which held hearings from 14 to 16 January in Dublin, Ireland.

The preliminary findings issued on Saturday January 16 stated that based on eye-witness accounts and other material evidence, Sri Lanka Government is "guilty of War-Crimes" and "guilty of Crimes Against Humanity."

Eye witnesses included several escapees from the final week of Sri Lanka offensive in the Mullaitivu "No Fire Zone" where more than 20,000 Tamil civilians were allegedly slaughtered by Sri Lanka Army training heavy weapons on them.

The tribunal also concluded that the charge of Genocide requires further investigations.

“Harrowing evidence, including video footage, was submitted by eye-witnesses of the use of heavy artillery and phosphorous munitions, and of the continuous violation of human rights by military activity to a panel of ten international jurors over two days,” the Peoples Tribunal on Sri Lanka (PTSL) said in a statement.

Using satellite imagery and witness statements, the tribunal was able to construct a timeline for attacks on Puthukkudiyiruppu (PTK) Hospital, for example.

"The presentation in Dublin on Satellite Image Analysis on PTK Hospital is the first step in making international institutions aware the type of legally acceptable evidence that can be gathered from the battle areas which were deliberately kept isolated from news organizations and NGOs by the perpetrator of war-crimes, the Sri Lanka Government,” a representative for the US based Tamils Against Genocide (TAG) told TamilNet .

“Attacks on other hospitals, destruction of schools and places of worship will be examined, and evidence collected as follow up steps,” they said, adding that this evidence will be used to bolster the case that the actions of the Sri Lankan government amounted to genocide.

The hearings were conducted in public as well as in camera to protect the identity of key witnesses.

The tribunal, chaired by Francois Houtart, also accused the international community, UK and the USA in particular, of being instrumental in the break down of the peace process between the Sri Lanka government and the Tamil Tigers.

The PTSL is an initiative of the Ireland peace process supported by the University of Dublin and Dublin City University.

The Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka has urged the government to allow the UN to conduct an inquiry into the war crimes and to release all internally displaced people and former combatants.

The Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka asserted that long term peace and stability can only be established on the basis of full justice and rights for all the inhabitants of the island.

The Sri Lanka government however has denied the findings with Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, describing the Permanent People’s Tribunal as a ‘kangaroo court’.

A statement released by the Sri Lankan government said, the judgments of the ‘Permanent People’s Tribunal on Sri Lanka’ will do nothing to further permanent peace efforts in Sri Lanka, but pose a serious threat to the country’s  stability.

“We strongly condemn any unaccountable organization, whether it purports to be a quasi-legal entity or not, irresponsibly distorting events and seeking to selectively pass judgment from afar,”

The statement went on to claim that the members of the tribunal should be helping Sri Lanka unite and move on at the end of a terrible conflict, not continue to stoke it.

Despite the killings of top LTTE leaders, including its chief Velupillai Pirapakaran, and the decimation of the organisation, the concept of Tamil Eelam has not died out amongst those harbouring it, the Sri Lankan Army Chief warned.

“Even at present those who had connections with terrorists and the Tamil Diaspora overseas are still discussing the possibility of establishing a state of Eelam according to information we received,” Lt Gen Jagath Jayasuriya was quoted by Zee News as saying.

During his separate interactions with troops at Kallady, Thoppigala, Vakarai and Punani in eastern Sri Lanka, Lt Gen Jayasuriya recalled the numerous sacrifices that continue to be made by the Sri Lankan soldiers – “war heroes” as he called them – at the risk of their own "lives, blood, sweat, legs and limbs", the Army said in a statement.

This is despite the fact that the Tigers' military wing was defeated in May last year, Jayasuriya said during his maiden visits to the Brigades in the Eastern Province.

Stating that the Army has the responsibility to protect the country, Jayasuriya said a large number of troops in Northern and Eastern areas were deployed not for offensive duties but for observations or intelligence duties.

"Specially, if any group takes up arms again as terrorists we must be ready to face such a situation," Jayasuriya said.

He said the Army has the duty to help the police maintaining law and order during election time.

"I believe that the Army troops would continue their normal duties better in the North and East establishing security in the area during election times," he said.

Jayasuriya said that for the convenience of the armed forces, the authorities are planning to establish holiday resorts in the areas where they are not available at present.

He said the land has already been allocated in Nilaveli (East) and Yala (South-east) areas for this purpose.

Tamil analysts questioned whether the land for these ‘resorts’ had been properly acquired or had been appropriated by the Army from Tamil civilians.

Jayasuriya said the salaries and perks for the Army had been increased recently, even as Sri Lanka comes under increasing pressure to curtail its debt and better manage its economy.

The Army Chief said special attention would be given to training in 2010 since the newly recruited soldiers during the last two years did not get proper training as they were engaged in active operations against the LTTE. 

Despite the efforts of the Sri Lankan government and Central Bank to paint a picture of a vibrant economy on the brink of an historic expansion, the island confronts a worsening economic crisis.

Like a number of European countries, Sri Lanka is burdened with heavy foreign debts and a ballooning budget deficit, in large part due to the huge military spending needed to wage war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The Sri Lankan army defeated the LTTE last May, but the island’s economic problems have only deepened.

Last week Central Bank governor Ajit Nivard Cabraal visited London to tout for foreign investment, saying Sri Lanka was ready to take off. Foreign reserves, he declared, had risen to around $US6 billion, equal to six months imports, and economic growth would increase dramatically to around 6.5 percent in 2010, up from 3.5 percent last year.

The truth is that the rise in foreign reserves has rested substantially on large commercial borrowings by the government, and the release of the first two instalments of a $US2.6 billion International Monetary Fund standby loan, which is spread out over two years. The IMF approved the loan last July when the country faced a major foreign exchange crisis and, potentially, a default.

The Sunday Times economic columnist warned: “Most of the [foreign currency] reserves are loans that have to be repaid rather than funds that have been earned through exports. These contingent liabilities have also increased the country’s public debt that is a serious burden on the economy…”

The columnist also noted that another reason for the favourable foreign exchange figures was a rise in remittances sent by workers employed overseas, particularly in the Middle East. He pointed out that while remittances increased 14.2 percent in US dollar terms over the first 11 months of 2009, exports were sharply down in all areas by an overall 14.7 percent.

These included a fall of 12.3 percent in agricultural exports, including 10.2 percent for tea, and 15.1 percent for industrial exports.

Textile and garment exports fell by only 5.3 percent, but the sector will be hard hit by the EU’s decision to end its GSP+ trade preferences over the Sri Lankan military’s war crimes and human rights abuses.

Like the US, the EU is using the human rights issue to pressure the Sri Lankan government, and undermine the influence of rivals such as China. But the decision to end GSP+, which will take effect in six months, will have a damaging effect on garment exports and jobs. More than half of the sector’s exports go to Europe.

The latest debt figures show continuing rapid rises. The country’s outstanding debt increased by 83.2 billion rupees ($728 million) from September to October last year, with the total rising to 4.1 trillion rupees ($35.6 billion).

Of that, foreign debt amounted to 1.77 trillion rupees—a 29.6 percent increase from the previous month. Since then, the Central Bank has not published figures—in part to obscure the real economic situation in the lead-up to the January 26 presidential election.

During the first 10 months of last year, the budget deficit expanded by more than 50 percent, compared to the previous year and hit 8.4 percent of GDP. The estimated deficit for 2009 as a whole is a staggering 11.3 percent of GDP, which far exceeds the limit set by the IMF as a condition of its loan.

The IMF releases quarterly instalments of $330 million following a review to ensure that the government is on track to meet its targets.

Over three years starting with 2009, the budget deficit must be successively reduced to 7, 6 and 5 percent of GDP. If the estimated 2009 budget figure is correct, the government has exceeded its limit by a massive 4.2 percentage points.

Last week the IMF residential representative Koshy Mathai warned that the Fund was concerned about the high fiscal deficit. While his tone was measured so as not to spook the markets, Mathai declared: “The fiscal situation is challenging… We want to see whether the underlying deficit reduction path will be maintained.”

This warning has only one meaning. The government will be compelled to slash the budget deficit by more than half by the end of 2011, which can be achieved only through a savage assault on public spending and the living conditions of working people. An IMF delegation is expected to visit the country at the end of this month to conduct a quarterly review.

In the lead-up to the presidential election, President Mahinda Rajapakse, who is also the finance minister, postponed the budget with the tacit approval of the IMF. Now, amid a deepening political crisis in Colombo, Rajapakse has called a general parliamentary election for April 8. The budget will be presented only after the next government is formed.

The IMF, however, may well insist that Rajapakse start to spell out just what steps he will take to reduce the budget prior to April.

The conditions of the loan require the government to make tax reforms and restructure key state-owned enterprises, including the Petroleum Corporation and Electricity Board. Any steps in that direction will compound the political crisis in the lead up to the general election.

A sovereign debt crisis is looming in Europe and elsewhere; it is a new stage in the global economic turmoil that erupted in 2008. Greece’s budget deficit is running at 13 percent. EU officials have put forward a plan to slash public service wages and jobs, increase the retirement age by two years, cut health care, and impose higher taxes, including a tax surcharge on fuel, with the aim of bringing the budget deficit down to 3 percent.

The impact will be no less in Sri Lanka. As soon as the general election is over, the Rajapakse government will be compelled to launch what he has termed an “economic war”.

While the president uses the term to conjure up a glorious “victory” that will make Sri Lanka “the emerging miracle of Asia,” the reality is that working people will be forced to pay.

Using the military analogy, Rajapakse has already made clear that workers will have to perform like soldiers and be prepared to make heavy sacrifices.

The arrest of the main opposition candidate at the recent presidential elections, General (retd) Sarath Fonseka, has drawn protests and condemnation from opposition parties in Sri Lanka, while the government claims it is now a natter for the courts.

Fonseka was arrested in a spectacular swoop on his political office by military police on the night of Monday 8 February.

The arrest as he was in discussion with political allies on challenging the presidential poll results and on campaign tactics for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

The retired General, who led the military onslaught against the Liberation Tigers between 2005 and 2010, had earlier in the day claimed that he was prepared to testify against anyone on war crimes in front of an international court.

The government has charged Fonseka with plotting, while he was in the military, to overthrow the incumbent regime.

The Military Police also charged him with conspiracy to assassinate President Rajapakse and making political moves while in military uniform.

Legal experts predict that the Sri Lankan military courts may attempt to pass a life sentence on Fonseka.

He was allegedly charged with attempting to topple the government by joining the opposition parties while serving in the post of Military General and Joint Forces Commanding Chief, attempting to divide the military, and for granting shelter to army deserters.

However, analysts speculate that the arrest may have had more to do with Fonseka’s threats to assist prosecutions of war-crimes charges against senior members of the military and the Rajapakse family.

“I am not going to save anyone who has committed war crimes. I am definitely going to reveal what I know, what I was told and what I heard," Fonseka said, speaking to journalists on the morning of the day he was arrested.

“Any one who has committed war crimes should definitely be brought into courts,” he said, adding "Those who reveal the truth are not traitors.”

Fonseka had earlier alleged that two of the President’s brothers had been complicit in the killing of unarmed members of the Liberation Tigers who were surrendering – which is a war crime.

In an interview with The Sunday Leader newspaper Fonseka had implicated Defense Secretary Gothabaya Rajapakse and Presidential advisor Basil Rajapakse in the incident in May 2009 when the LTTE political wing chief, B Nadesan, his deputy S Pulidevan and the LTTE police chief, Ramesh were killed with their families.

When the military police burst into his office, Fonseka was allegedly in a meeting with the leaders of Tamil and Muslim parties that had supported his presidential challenge.

Press reports said he was meeting Rauf Hakeem, the leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and Mano Ganesan, the leader of the Democratic People’s Front (DPF) at their Colombo campaign headquarters to discuss challenging the results of the presidential poll. Other reports suggested that Somawanse Amarasinghe, the leader of the Sinhala nationalist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) was also present.

The Sri Lankan media reported that Fonseka resisted arrest, and as a result was dragged away.

Reports said that Major-General Sumith Manawadu had stormed in with a group of military policemen and ordered them to arrest the general and his aide Senaka da Silva.

"They stormed into the conference room while the meeting was going on and assaulted Mano Ganesan, he [Major-General Manawadu] punched him and then a dozen army people walked in,” Mr Samaraweera told the Daily Telegraph.

“General Fonseka said 'this must be done by the police', at which point Manawadu punched Fonseka. The other armed fellows pinned him to the ground and dragged him by the legs. They carried him down the stairs and bundled him into a van along with his secretary. He was also assaulted," Mr Samaraweera said.

"He is retired, the military police can't arrest him, it must be under civil law. Until 2am General Fonseka's wife had no idea of his whereabouts, and we still don't know anything. You can't be assaulted and bundled into a car without a warrant," he added.

Those present at the meeting condemned the manner of the arrest and described it as disgraceful.

“He was dragged away in a very disgraceful manner in front of our own eyes,” Rauff Hakeem told Reuters. Mano Ganesan claimed he was “dragged away like a dog”.

“There was no decorum. To call it an arrest gives dignity and legality to what was a brutal abduction. He was beaten, dragged along the floor and bundled into a van," said opposition politician and Fonseka’s campaign spokesperson Mangala Samaraweera.

Fonseka was taken to Navy Headquarters where he still remains without being charged while evidence is being put together in preparation for a General Court Martial.

Fonseka’s wife Anoma gave a tearful statement to international media the day after his arrest, pleading for his release.

"This is not an arrest. It is an abduction," a tearful Anoma Fonseka told a news conference at her home in Colombo.

Mrs Fonseka complained that her 59-year-old husband had been "dragged out and treated like an animal" by the soldiers after he objected to being arrested by military rather than civilian police.

"We always knew that the Government will try to arrest my husband, but we never thought they would do it in such a disgusting manner," she said through sobs.

Mrs Foneska was later forced to give a statement to police investigators, who raided her home at midnight and questioned her until 2am, press reports said.

In a joint statement the main parliamentary opposition said they are in fear for his life while he is in detention and called for protests over the arrest.

"We will take this matter to courts, we will take it before the people and we will take it before the international community," said Rauf Hakeem.

Former Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe, also leader of the main opposition party United National Party (UNP), alleged that the time taken to file charges is used by the government to fabricate evidence.

Mrs Fonseka has been a rallying point to the fractured opposition coalition, with press reports indicating that she will be spearheading his parliamentary election campaign unless he is released from detention.

Analysts say that he will contest the election with a new coalition, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) which was formed in an alliance with the JVP and various other parties.

The government denied all claims that Fonseka was being ill-treated or denied access to his family or lawyers.

“Family members are allowed to see him and he has been allowed to obtain legal advice also,” said Major General Prasad Samarasinghe, a military spokesman, adding that the former army commander was not even in a cell.

President Rajapakse also defended the arrest.

“Only after going through all the evidence was the Army given the green light to do what they wanted,” he told The Hindu.

“This is an enquiry [under military law] to see if there is a prima facie case against Fonseka. I don’t want to get involved in the judicial process,” he said.

“One thing is that I am a lawyer myself, so I always respect the law. I never say anything against the courts, against the judges,” the President added in defense of the move against Fonseka.

Fonseka is boycotting all proceedings according to a statement by his attorney Mr. Wijedasa Rajapakse (no relation to the President) to The Sunday Times.

The Sri Lankan Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Fonseka's arrest.

"The court granted leave to proceed with the case because it appeared, on the face of it, there had been a breach of fundamental rights of Gen Fonseka," a court official told Agence France-Presse news agency.

The court is expected to reconvene on 23 February to hear evidence.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and key international actors should take steps to bring accountability for Sri Lanka's grave human rights violations so that the thousands of victims will not continue to be denied justice during President Mahinda Rajapaksa's second term, Human Rights Watch said, after the President succeeded in winning his second term in office in late January.

The human rights situation in Sri Lanka deteriorated markedly during Rajapaksa's first term, and he failed to hold perpetrators accountable, the rights organisation said.

During the final months of the 26-year-long war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), both government and LTTE forces committed numerous serious violations of international humanitarian law, the report said.

"The human rights situation in Sri Lanka plummeted to new depths on Rajapaksa's watch," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

"The president deftly played a false conflict between rights and the fight against terrorism in his first term. But with the war over, the UN and other international actors should loudly insist on justice for victims."

Rajapaksa was elected to a second term on January 26, 2010, in a hotly contested election in which his former army chief, retired Gen. Sarath Fonseka, was the runner-up.

Although election day was relatively peaceful, according to election monitors, the campaign was marked by hundreds of incidents of violence in which at least four people were killed.

During and after the war, Rajapaksa's government confined nearly 300,000 internally displaced persons to large detention camps, where they were deprived of their liberty and freedom of movement in violation of international law.

The government has separated more than 11,000 LTTE suspects from their families at checkpoints and in the camps, denying them due process, such as right to legal counsel and the right to have a court review their detention, HRW said.

Threats and attacks against outspoken and critical civil society figures increased, and the government used anti-terror laws and emergency regulations against peaceful critics, further diminishing the space for public debate.

The hostile, sometimes deadly, media environment drove dozens of journalists into exile, the rights group noted.

Enforced disappearances and abductions, a longstanding and widespread problem in Sri Lanka, sharply increased in 2006, when military operations between the government and the LTTE intensified following the collapse of the 2002 ceasefire.

In 2006 and 2007, the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances recorded more new "disappearance" cases from Sri Lanka than from any other country in the world.

Politically motivated killings during Rajapaksa's first term also remain unresolved, including the extrajudicial executions of five students in Trincomalee in January 2006 and of 17 aid workers with Action Contre la Faim in Mutur in August 2006.

Rajapaksa took no effective steps to bring accountability for human rights violations, Human Rights Watch said.

In July 2009, Rajapaksa disbanded, before it could complete its work, a presidential commission of inquiry created in 2006 to investigate 16 cases of grave human rights violations.

In April 2008, the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) had withdrawn from monitoring the commission because it had "not been able to conclude ... that the proceedings of the Commission have been transparent or have satisfied basic international norms and standards."

The vast majority of the hundreds of new "disappearances" and politically motivated killings from the past few years have never been seriously investigated, and none of the perpetrators have been punished.

In May 2009 Rajapaksa promised Ban that the Sri Lankan government would investigate allegations of human rights and laws-of-war violations during the war's final months. No such investigation has taken place.

Instead, the government has set up a team of lawyers to respond to allegations about rights violations in reports by the US State Department and the UN special envoy on extrajudicial executions.

Because of the government's failure to investigate serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch has long called for an independent international investigation into abuses by all parties to the conflict.

Thus far, the secretary-general's office has stated that Ban was "considering" establishing a committee of experts to "assist the government" of Sri Lanka to look at evidence that its soldiers committed war crimes last year.

"The various investigatory bodies set up by President Rajapaksa have spent more energy trying to deflect serious inquiries into abuses than actually conducting them," Adams said.

"Ban and key governments should not fall for the same trick again and instead should call for an independent international investigation. The ball is now in Ban's court."

The Sri Lankan government has approached Emirates airline about buying the Dubai-based carrier's stake in state-controlled SriLankan Airlines.

“The government has decided to purchase,” SriLankan Airlines Chairman Nishanta Wickremasinghe said in an interview with Bloomberg. “They are negotiating,” he said, declining to elaborate.

The Emirates president confirmed the approach.

"They (the government) have put out feelers that's all ... to see whether we are interested," Tim Clark told Reuters on Wednesday, February 17.

“Emirates can confirm that the Sri Lankan government has been investigating the possibility of increasing their share in SriLankan Airlines,” the Middle East carrier said in a statement.

Clark said talks were not at an advanced stage but if the "price is right" Emirates would be open to a deal.

In April 2008, Emirates said it may consider selling its stake, after opting not to renew a management contract for the airline. At that time the Sri Lankan government took over the running of the airline.

Emirates currently holds a 43.6 percent stake in SriLankan Airlines, a holding which had previously been valued at about $150 million. The Middle East’s largest airline initially bought a 40 percent stake in the south Asian country’s biggest carrier in 1998 for $70 million.

The Arab world's largest airline, which has $55 billion of orders with Airbus and Boeing said earlier this month it expected to take delivery of 11 aircraft in 2010 as it pressed ahead with expansion into Europe, and funding its aircraft purchases was not a problem.

SriLankan Air slumped to a loss of 10 billion rupees (USD87 million) in the year ended March, hurt by dwindling tourist arrivals and the global recession.

Tourist arrivals in Sri Lanka have increased since June, helping the company to recoup losses and consider expanding a fleet of 12 aircraft, said Chief Executive Officer Manoj Gunawardena.

“We broke even in December 2009,” he said yesterday. The airline fills an average of 70 percent of its capacity, he said.

The airline added two new single-aisle Airbus SAS A320 planes in the year to March and acquired a third in the quarter to June 30. Two more single-aisle planes may be added as traffic grows and by October the airline will acquire a wide-bodied A330 or A340, Gunawardena said.

Sri Lanka's economy will grow 5.5 percent in 2010 due to improving domestic demand and potential export growth after a 25-year war ended in 2009 and as global recovery takes hold, the IMF said on Feb 10.

The $40 billion economy, hit by a balance of payment crisis early last year, has already received two tranches of a $2.6 billion IMF loan.

Sri Lanka could overshoot its 2009 budget deficit target set by the IMF for a $2.6 billion loan, due to high post-war reconstruction costs, a central bank official said on Monday.

The IMF has set a budget deficit target of seven percent of gross domestic product for 2009, although both the global lender and the central bank have acknowledged it as a challenging one.

Government spending on reconstruction after the end of a 25-year war in May and low revenue due to a sluggish economy were putting pressure on the deficit, Ranasinghe said.

The budget data for 2009 is expected to be announced in the central bank’s annual report due in late March or early April. An IMF mission will be in Sri Lanka this week to assess December data before deciding on the third tranche of the loan.

Sri Lanka’s IMF resident representative Koshy Mathai has said whether or not the IMF is flexible in a country is determined on a “case by case” basis.

A well-administered election day but challenges in the pre-election period, was the concludsion of the Commonwealth Expert Team that monitored the Sri Lankan Presidential polls on January 26.

The Commonwealth Secretary-General, Kamalesh Sharma, released the Final Report of the Commonwealth Expert Team on Monday 15 February 2010.

In issuing the report, he noted the Expert Team’s conclusion that “even though on the day of the election voters were free to express their will, shortcomings primarily in the pre-election period meant that overall the 2010 Presidential elections in Sri Lanka did not fully meet key benchmarks for democratic elections.”

Mr Sharma was encouraged by the report’s finding that “the administrative arrangements for voting and counting were well conducted and the Commissioner of Elections and his staff across the country expended great effort to put in place procedures to ensure Sri Lankans were able to cast their ballots.”

Referring to post-election developments in the country, including the arrest of the main opposition candidate for the presidential election, the Secretary-General said: “These developments have increased tension. It is important that the rule of law and due process are applied.”

Mr Sharma also expressed the hope that “Sri Lanka will move towards political and social reconciliation in the aftermath of the first post-conflict elections and in the lead-up to the forthcoming parliamentary elections.”

The Secretary-General added: “Many of the problems identified reflect the same problems identified during previous elections. These problems – which have also been highlighted by the country’s own Commissioner of Elections – will hopefully receive urgent consideration. The Commonwealth is ready to assist as requested.”

The Report was completed and signed by all members of the Commonwealth Expert Team prior to their departure from Sri Lanka.

It was presented to the Commonwealth Secretary-General by the Chair of the Team, Senator K D Knight, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Jamaica. Before being made public, it was distributed to the President of Sri Lanka, leaders of political parties, the Commissioner of Elections and to all Commonwealth governments.

This week, Sri Lankan voters go to the polls to elect a new president. No matter the victor, neither of the two main candidates is likely to provide the justice and closure that Sri Lanka's thousands of war victims deserve.

In 2007-8, I was a member of an independent international advisory group observing Sri Lanka's investigation of human rights violations dating from 2006. I concluded that the government lacked the political will to hold accountable the perpetrators of these egregious crimes. When the United Nations secretary-general said this month that he is considering naming a commission of experts to "assist the government" of Sri Lanka to look at evidence its soldiers committed war crimes last year, my reaction was a chilling feeling of déjà-vu.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa established a domestic Commission of Inquiry in 2006 to investigate 16 cases of grave human rights violations by government forces and the Tamil Tigers. He appointed me and 10 other international experts as members of an International Independent Group of Eminent Persons to monitor the commission's work. We observed and commented on the transparency of its investigations, as well as their conformity to international norms and standards.

Our group quickly discovered that the commission's work didn't conform to those standards, and that the offices of the Attorney General and the Presidential Secretariat repeatedly created obstacles. These actions created a pervasive climate of fear, making potential witnesses reluctant to come forward. Many would testify only via video-conferencing after fleeing the country. But their statements were so devastating that the government arranged to have such testimony declared inadmissible as evidence.

The government ignored or rejected most of the suggestions we made. Official correspondence directed to us was often characterized by a lack of respect and civility. By our fifth quarterly meeting, we saw the mockery being made of the process, and unanimously decided to terminate our work.

The commission's mandate expired last July. It investigated only seven of its 16 cases. The president hasn't published its report and not a single person has been prosecuted because of the commission's work. The commission, like most of the nine such commissions appointed since independence in 1948, was a failure.

But now, there is impetus for another inquiry. Compelling evidence suggests that both the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers committed serious violations during what the UN called the "bloodbath" that marked the end of the armed conflict last May. In October, the U.S. State Department published a report with information on hundreds of alleged attacks killing and wounding civilians. Human Rights Watch has accused both sides of serious violations of international law, some of which may amount to war crimes. These credible allegations prompted calls for an independent investigation from the United States, the European Union, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and organizations such as Human Rights Watch.

In October, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp called on the Sri Lankan government to "develop an accountability process that respects the interests of all." But Rapp's trust is completely misplaced in believing that an internal Sri Lankan investigation will produce any results.

Last May, President Rajapaksa promised UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to investigate allegations of laws-of-war violations. No action was taken, however, until November, when the publication of the State Department report compelled Rajapaksa to appoint a six-member committee of "experts" to "examine [its allegations] carefully." The committee's only mandate was to provide recommendations to the president in December (now postponed to April), and its members do not appear to be independent-minded.

As with our commission, it appears this inquiry was intended not to bring accountability, but to avoid it. Sarath Fonseka, the army chief in charge during last year’s "blood bath" and now Rajapaksa's rival in the elections, isn't likely to bring about a credible investigation either.

The Sri Lankan government has proven time and again that it's unwilling to ensure accountability for serious violations, an absolutely vital precondition for genuine reconciliation and lasting peace. Secretary-General Ban should now take the initiative and establish a real independent international investigation. The United States, the European Union, and Sri Lanka's biggest donor, Japan, should support such an effort. A just and peaceful future for Sri Lanka depends on dealing forthrightly with its grievous past.

Arthur E. "Gene" Dewey is a former assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

According to elections officials, only 1 in 9 persons classed as internally displaced had heeded the call to register to vote in the January 26 presidential elections by the deadline.

Although 200,000 IDPs were on the 2008 electoral register, only 22,000 submitted applications to vote in the upcoming election prompting election officials in the north to hold a special meeting with the Elections Commissioner, according to Sunday Times newspaper in Sri Lanka.

According to the newspaper, election monitoring groups are blaming the Commissioner and political parties for not taking effective steps to encourage IDPs to vote and have demanded to extend the deadline to give those who missed the opportunity to apply.

Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CaFFE) spokesman Keerthi Tennekoon said there had been little or no voter education for more than three decades in some parts of the north and people did not know the importance of voting, reported the Sunday Times.

He further said the main opposition parties the UNF and the JVP had not conducted campaigns in Jaffna or Wanni districts, especially among the IDPs.

“We have received reports that certain parties were not allowed to visit the camps”. Mr. Tennekoon was quoted as saying.

A Tamil political analyst commenting on the IDPs’ lack of interest in the upcoming election said the poor voter registration is a clear indication that Tamils have no appetite for an election at a time when they are struggling to piece together their lives shattered by a genocidal war and forced internment.

An election would be the last thing in mind for the IDPs who live in fear under military and armed paramilitary occupation with human rights abuses accepted as part of life, he further added.

The United Nations has turned down a request from Sri Lanka to send observers to monitor the country's presidential election later this month because of lack of time, a UN spokesman said.

Incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa is standing against 21 challengers in the January 26 vote, the first since the government crushed a 25-year rebellion by Tamil Tigers in May.

UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said Sri Lanka's election commissioner and government had asked the world body to consider observing the election.

"In light of the limited lead time available" and because U.N. election observation requires a mandate from the General Assembly or Security Council, "the U.N. informed the commissioner and the government of Sri Lanka that it could not provide observers," Nesirky said.

The United Nations has not sent observers to monitor an election in any country for at least 10 years, Nesirky said, although it has provided technical assistance for votes in several nations, most recently Afghanistan.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Sri Lanka days after the end of the war against the Tigers. Some critics said his visit could be seen as endorsing the government's military victory.

Two weeks before Sri Lanka's Presidential elections, the gap between the two main contenders has, to the surprise of many, narrowed. While it is now no longer certain who the winner will be, the intensifying struggle between the incumbent, Mahinda Rajapakse, and his challenger, former Army chief Sarath Fonseka, typifies all that is wrong with Sri Lanka. In short, who wins - and how the subsequent Parliamentary polls unfold - is less important to Sri Lanka's future than how the international community engages with the Sinhala ethnocracy.

To begin with, amid the excitement of Fonseka's increasingly powerful challenge, what is largely forgotten is why he is a credible candidate in the first place: it is because both Rajapakse and Fonseka are self-confessed Sinhala chauvinists who share a vision of the island as a Sinhala-Buddhist bastion in which the Tamil-speaking minorities may exist provided they know their subordinate place. This is a view so widely shared as to be commonsensical amongst the Sinhalese and has been consistently reflected since independence in southern voting patterns and changes in state policy.

This is also why Fonseka has, with no difficulty, become the common candidate of the main Sinhala opposition. The market-friendly UNP (United National Party) and JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Perumana), the second and third largest Sinhala parties after Rajapakse's ruling SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party), are bitterly opposed, both in terms of policy and history: it was a UNP regime which slaughtered sixty thousand Sinhala youth as it crushed the JVP's armed insurrection in the late eighties. What unites them now is a recognition that only an ultra-nationalist can win Sinhala votes in numbers sufficient to worry, let alone defeat, Rajapakse.

It has ever been thus. There are other Sinhala candidates with long political histories. Wickremabahu Karunaratne of the New Left Front (NLF) is one. But his platform of accommodation and equity between Sinhalese and Tamils has strikingly little standing amongst the former. No genuine liberal voice has any hope. That much has been clear since 1956.

Nonetheless, as Rajapakse's government and supporters are protesting ever more loudly, the West-led international community would rather there was a regime change in Colombo. Fonseka's challenge advances this cause. But were he and/or the UNP to assume power this year, an equitable and lasting ethnic peace on the island will, in the absence of close, robust and sustained international engagement, be no closer.

The main Tamil coalition, the TNA (Tamil National Alliance), last week hesitantly expressed its preference for Fonseka. This has undoubtedly been a difficult decision for the party. Rajapske and Fonseka jointly oversaw the cold-blooded slaughter by artillery, airstrikes and starvation, of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians. They conducted a murderous campaign of assassination, 'disappearance', torture and rape against Tamil civil society - journalists, aid workers, political activists and several TNA parliamentarians and activists. Inevitably, the TNA's decision to back one chauvinist and war criminal over another has discomfited, if not outraged, many Tamils and others.

But the TNA leadership's decision is not devoid of reason when situated in the deepening internationalization of Sri Lanka's ethnic crisis. They have rightly set out what they first expect from any new regime in Colombo: the urgent alleviation of the acute and multi-faceted humanitarian crisis that is gripping the Tamils and their homeland. They have also reiterated their commitment to the fundamentals of Tamil political aspirations.

Moreover, they have also made it clear that they expect nothing from Fonseka or the Sinhala polity more generally. As we and other Tamil voices argued when they were announced, the outcome of this year's polls will, in and of themselves, change nothing: the structural persecution and suffering of the Tamils will simply continue unabated. Rather, it is in the international community's commitment to an equitable solution that the TNA has placed its trust. Amid the long-standing international support for the Sinhala-dominated state, this has been dismissed by skeptics as naïve and is undoubtedly a conscious gamble.

For those who saw Sri Lanka's problems as the Liberation Tigers and the Tamil demand for Eelam, the present is a radical change from the past. For those who see it as one of deeply entrenched Sinhala majoritarianism - by which we mean not only the prevailing attitudes amongst the Sinhalese, but a principle embedded in state machinery and policy decisions - the present is a continuation of the past. The course of Sinhala majoritarianism - and Tamil resistance to it - will not change from within. Hence Sri Lanka's future will turn almost entirely on what happens from without.

With the Presidential elections less than a month away, campaigning by the two leading candidates, President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gen. Sarath Fonseka (retd.) has gone into top gear with both making numerous promises to entice voters.

When Rajapakse announced his plan to hold the presidential election two years before his current term expires, he was hoping to capitalise on defeating the LTTE for his re-election. With the opposition not being able to counter Rajapaksa’s claiming of credit for the war victory, a landslide win for him was a forgone conclusion.

Unfortunately for Rajapaksa, the emergence of the Fonseka, his former military chief, as the rallying point for most of the opposition parties has made the election a tough fight for Rajapaksa.

Rajapaksa and his Fonseka, who as the army commander also claims credit for defeating the LTTE, have been at loggerheads since the end of the conflict.

Late last year, accusing the government of sidelining him and falsely suspecting him of trying to stage a coup, Fonseka quit his military post and threw his lot into the presidential election.

As hard-line Sinhala nationalists both Fonseka and Rajapaksa claim credit for defeating the LTTE in May and appeal largely to their own ethnic group.

True to their Sinhala nationalist leanings Fonseka and Rajapaksa chose cities holy to the Sinhalese majority to kick off their campaigns with religious blessings and rallies. Whilst Fonseka kicked off his campaign in the hill city of Kandy, home to a sacred relic of Buddha, Rajapaksa kicked off his campaign in Anuradhapura, a seat of ancient Sinhala kings.

Whilst Rajapksa is standing on an openly Sinhala nationalist platform,  focusing on the Sinhala votes, Fonseka has cobbled together an anti-Mahinda coalition comprising of opposition parties who have come together despite having little commonality in their policies.

Rajapaksa, as commander-in-chief of security forces and Fonseka as overall commander of security forces are accused of crimes against humanity for the brutal way in which they conducted the war in which tens of thousands Tamils were massacred.

Chris Patten chairman of International Crisis Group and former Governor of Hong Kong writing in the International Herald Tribune wrote: “[P]ut yourself in a Tamil's shoes, and decide whom to vote for in the presidential election: Choose either the head of the government that ordered the attacks against you and your family, or the head of the army that carried it all out.”

For Tamils, this presidential election is no different to the previous ones - an exercise for the Sinhala nation to choose their leader. Tamils do not expect either candidate to take any meaningful steps to address their legitimate political aspirations.

Interestingly neither does the international community, based on Patten’s comments.

“What counts more than campaign promises, though, is what the winner actually does in office, and based on past performance, it is hard to imagine either candidate making the necessary constitutional reforms to end the marginalization of Tamils and other minorities - the roots of the decades-long conflict. Left unaddressed, Tamil humiliation and frustration could well lead to militancy again.” wrote Patten.

“While Sri Lankan voters face a difficult decision, for the international community, the choice is clear. Whoever wins, the outside world should use all its tools to convince the government to deal properly with those underlying issues to avoid a resurgence of mass violence. In the interest of lasting peace and stability, donor governments and international institutions - India, Japan, Western donors, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank - should use their assistance to support reforms designed to protect democratic rights, tie aid to proper resettlement of the displaced, and a consultative planning process for the reconstruction of the war-ravaged, overly militarized north. U.N. agencies and nongovernment organizations should have full access to monitor the programs to ensure international money is spent properly and people receiving aid are not denied their fundamental freedoms.”. Patten added

“In short, this means not giving Colombo any money for reconstruction and development until we know how it will be spent. And if we see funds not being used as promised, it means not being afraid to cut them off.” Patten concluded.

Unfortunately, Rajapaksa’s manifesto had no evidence of a real effort by the Sri Lankan President to address the Tamil national question.

In his 14-point programme manifesto titled `A brighter future’ Rajapaksa promises “a unitary state, not to be divided” indicating no meaningful power devolution and no changes to the existing constitution.

According to the manifesto, Rajapakse will put Sri Lanka in a prominent position in Asia and the world and focus on developing the country in the next decade which he declared as the "Development Decade" of Sri Lanka.

Speaking at the launch of the manifesto, President Rajapaksa conceded that having to spend most of the four years of his first in term in fighting terrorism, and also the many international forces that sought to obstruct the efforts to defeat the most ruthless organisation in the world, he had barely six months left to address other important issues, according to Hindu newspaper published in India.

He promised that his next term would be wholly devoted to addressing these issues that would take the country to development and progress, giving priority to the battle against corruption with the same determination with which he had fought the underworld and terrorism, the newspaper further reported.

Rajapaksa is trying to portray himself the leader who stood against international pressure to protect the nation whilst portraying the opposition parties as trying to give into terrorism by forming alliance with the Tamil National Alliance.

"These groups are trying to make way for another Eelam struggle in this country", Rajapaksa told the gathering on the occasion.

Copies of the manifesto were first presented to the Maha Sangha and all religious dignitaries present on the occasion.

A few days earlier, Fonseka launched his common minimum programme, titled "Vishvasaneeya Venasak" (Believable Change), setting out 10 points he will accomplish if he is elected.

Presenting his plan Fonseka told reporters he is not a politician but a government servant by profession and does not belong to any party but is a Sri Lankan who is acceptable to all.

In his programme, Fonseka pledged to maintain cordial and friendly ties with all countries world over and requested for an opportunity to be granted to establish democracy, wipe out corruption, and ease the burden the people are faced with.

"Life is harder under the Rajapaksas. Corruption, bribery, nepotism and ego-boosting extravagance are holding back the development of our country and hurting families," Fonseka told reporters at the launch of his manifesto.

In keeping with a Sri Lankan election tradition of populist subsidies, he promised higher public sector salaries and welfare payments, both of which are supported by one of his backers, the Marxist Janata Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party, but contradictory to the open market policies including privatisation and reduction in government expenses of another one his backers, the main opposition, United National Party.

Similarly, JVP and the Tamil National Alliance which announced its decision to back Fonseka have opposing views on the Tamil national question.

Political Analysts say whilst Fonseka may have not taken openly Sinhala nationalistic position, by trying to be everything to everyone, he may turn out to be nothing to anyone.

Over two hundred internally displaced people (IDPs) had been relocated to a camp in Killinochchi instead of resettling in their homes, says one of the refugees who spoke to the BBC.

He told the BBC Sinhala Service, that they were taken from Vavunia to Killinochchi to be put in another camp.

"We were brought here from the Arunachalam camp in Vavunia. They told us that we would be permanently resettled in our own homes," he told the BBC.

Tamil inmates from Vavunia say that they are frustrated about the situation.

"We had been here in this camp for over a month now. We were promised that we would be going home within days. Latest we heard is that it will happen in a month".

The refugee who spoke to the BBC from Killinochchi, said there are fifty two families in this camp situated at Killinochchi Central School.

"Once we arrived, we were given dry rations, now we get cooked food like any other camp. The perimeter of the school is guarded by the Army,"he said.

"My house is only 800 metres away from this camp. We are kept in the school while there is an army camp where my house was. This is a new camp established since the end of the war".

The refugees are not allowed out by the authorities, he says.

"After days of protest, they took us in a bus for a hair cut. The barber was only one hundred metres down the road. We were taken back to the camp immediately after the haircut".

The IDPs in Kilinochchi are waiting to go back to their homes says the refugee who spoke to BBC Sandeshaya.