Writing in the Times of India on Monday - Commonwealth Day, two prominent members of the Elders group, the Archibishop Desmond Tutu and the former Irish President Mary Robinson, argue that the "climate required for reconciliation does not yet exist" in sri Lanka and "urge the Commonwealth to seriously reconsider appointing Sri Lanka as its chair for 2013-15".

See here - 'Hope and reconciliation: Healing Sri Lanka’s wounds of conflict' - together with embedded links.

Extract reproduced below:

'How the Council chooses to act at this time will have a profound impact on Sri Lanka's standing in the international community. In this regard, we urge the Commonwealth to seriously reconsider appointing Sri Lanka as its chair for 2013-15, as it currently plans to do. In this role, Sri Lanka would host the biennial meeting of Commonwealth heads of government in November this year.

The prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has already threatened to boycott the summit if the situation does not improve. The UK Parliament has called on its prime minister, David Cameron, to do the same.

As Elders, we welcome this forthright stance and recall the Commonwealth's founding commitments to democracy, freedom, peace and the rule of law.

The Human Rights Council - still a relatively young institution, created by the UN in 2006 - must show that it can build on its successes from one session to the next: if last year's resolution gave Sri Lankans hope, this year's session must go further to keep their hope alive.

Other crises have flared in the past year. Syria and Mali, to take two obvious examples, rightly figure high on the Council's agenda. The case of Sri Lanka offers a different test: of the Council's ability to hold governments accountable even when global attention has turned elsewhere.'

Writing in The Guardian on Monday, the former UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, urged the British government to "back the call for CHOGM to be moved", arguing that "for it to go ahead in Sri Lanka would be a mockery of Commonwealth values and UN authority, and a further invitation for its government to ignore international pleas for decency and accountability."

See here - 'Britain must stand up for human rights in Sri Lanka'.

Extract reproduced below:

'Human Rights Watch says that several thousand people are locked up without charge, and that state-sponsored abuse of Tamil activists is widespread. Other UN investigations record over 5,000 outstanding cases of enforced and involuntary disappearances; and nearly 100,000 internally displaced people remain without proper protection. This is not the path of reconciliation promised by the Government after the civil war.

In 2005 the whole of the UN endorsed the idea of a "responsibility to protect" – the notion that governments and the international system should take active measures to protect civilian life. That doctrine is breached by authoritarian governments, but it is no excuse for the rest of us to stay silent.

This is a moment to show that calls for justice and democracy have teeth. Britain needs to back the call for Chogm to be moved. For it to go ahead in Sri Lanka would be a mockery of Commonwealth values and UN authority, and a further invitation for its government to ignore international pleas for decency and accountability. And it would be a nail in the coffin of the vision of a pluralistic Sri Lanka, respectful of the place of all its peoples.

Sri Lanka is not being victimised or picked on. UN conventions are the civilising product of the wars – and unstopped slaughters – of the 20th century. They are a universal badge of humanity. Our government should be standing up for them.'

Asked by Channel 4's Jonathan Miller on whether Sri Lanka should be hosting the CHOGM later this year, Sri Lanka's ambassador to the UK Chris Nonis replied:

"We welcome everyone to Sri Lanka, because I think it's a wonderful opportunity for everyone to make an objective and impartial analysis  of the wonder reconciliation programme that is taking part in the country."

Miller: "Do you think Sri Lanka abides by the Commonwealth's values and principles? Rule of law? Human rights?"

Nonis: "Absolutely. We were one of the founding nations."

Miller: "Why do so many disagree with you, including the UN?"

Nonis: "I think it is only you who disagree with us."

The head of the Commonwealth, Kamalesh Sharma refused to comment on the issue, reported Channel 4.

According to local Sri Lankan media reports, the External Affairs Secretary Karunathilaka Amunugama has said that the government had appointed a committee to study the draft of the resolution.

"We will make a response once the committee has presented the government with their report," Xinhua quoted him as saying.

 The Sri Lanka Campaign have released a new infographic  that portrays the devastating intensity of Tamil civilian casualties as a result of the Sri Lankan government’s indiscriminate shelling in 2009.

The graphic provides a stark comparison of civilian casualties within recent wars and conflicts.

Speaking in the Lok Sabha, BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, said, “We are not in favour of carving out a separate nation out of Sri Lanka but are totally against the butchering of the Tamils.”

He also outlined the party's road map for the island's future:

1. Withdrawal of Army from Northern Sri Lanka and handing over law and order duties to local police.

2. Implementation of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Committee.

3. Implementation of not only 13th Amendment, but additional provisions to ensure full devolution of powers to Northern Sri Lanka

4. Institution of an independent and impartial enquiry comprising people from outside Sri Lanka to probe human rights abuses

5. Clear commitment that guilty shall be punished

6. India should not merely vote at the UN Human Rights Council, but take a lead in drafting resolution against Sri Lanka.

7. Let India convey other nations in neighbourhood not to interfere in affairs of Sri Lanka and Indo-Sri Lanka relations.

Sri Lanka does not recognise resolution 19/2 adopted by the UNHRC in March 2012 said the country's ambassador to Geneva during an informal meeting on Friday regarding the resolution tabled by the US.

Ravinatha Aryasinha, the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva said:

"The Government of Sri Lanka does not recognise resolution 19/2 and maintains its consistent position that, through resolutions of this nature, what is being perpetuated is a politicized process in a manner which is unfair, biased, unjust, and contrary to the principles of cooperation, genuine dialogue and the founding principles of universality, impartiality non selectivity, that should guide all member states in facilitating the method of engagement and the mandate of the Council."

The full text of his quotes, as outlined in the Asian Tribune, are reproduced below:

1. I am here today, as I do not wish to dismiss the interest taken in Sri Lanka by member and observer states, representatives of international organizations and civil society, irrespective of whether such interest is justified or not. GOSL always has, and continues to remain engaged with all parties seeking a respectful and constructive dialogue on how to move the process of reconciliation in Sri Lanka forward. We hope this spirit of engagement will be reciprocated, and that member and observer states of the HRC will view developments in Sri Lanka with an open mind.

2. The pith and substance of resolution 19/2 was to mandate the OHCHR to provide in consultation with, and with the concurrence of the GoSL, advice and technical assistance, and for the OHCHR to report to the Council on the nature of the assistance provided on the implementation of Sri Lanka’s domestic reconciliation mechanism, the LLRC.

3. With reference to the OHCHR Report (A/HRC/22/38), it may be noted that the High Commissioner has gone beyond her mandate in making recommendations which are arbitrary, highly intrusive and of a politicized nature, which have not given due regard or recognition to the work of Sri Lanka’s ongoing mechanism of reconciliation through the National Action Plan on the implementation of the recommendations of the LLRC.

4. We note a paradigm shift in the draft text of the resolution which was circulated yesterday (7th March 2013) by the Û.S. Mission, whereby the pith and substance of the resolution 19/2 has been completely disregarded and clearly deviated from, and there is a call to implement the recommendations contained in the OHCHR report (A/HRC/22/38) which is by itself outside the ambit of OP3 of 19/2. In the new draft, substantive provisions have been introduced which are totally unrelated to the mandate given in 19/2, and steers completely away from the spirit and substance of 19/2 into a new realm.

5. The new resolution therefore:

i. Is based on a misconceived and arbitrary premise and does not have a nexus to 19/2, although it recalls 19/2.

ii. is also far from a "procedural resolution", as it was originally claimed and is substantive, intrusive and political in nature.

iii. contravenes UNGA resolution 60/251 and HRC resolutions 5/1 and 5/2. For example, there is blatant contradiction of resolution 5/2 [specifically Article 11(b)] which calls upon mandate holders to ensure that the field visits are conducted ‘with the consent or at the invitation of the state concerned’.

iv. also ignores resolutions 5/1 and 21/21 which identify the UPR as a channel to constructively explore avenues for technical assistance.

v. despite acknowledgement by member and observer states at successive sessions of this Council, the last occasion being the Sri Lanka UPR in November 2012 – only 4 months ago - there is no acknowledgment in the new draft of the substantial progress made by Sri Lanka through the ongoing reconciliation process. For example, there is significant progress made by the GoSL in the reconciliation process since the restoration of peace in 2009 including in IDP resettlement, rehabilitation of ex-combatants including child soldiers, demining, infrastructure development, livelihood development, etc.

vi. is intrusive, politicized and in clear contravention of accepted principles of conduct in the Council.

vii. is precedent setting, and can in the medium-to-long term have an adverse impact on all developing countries.

6. Sri Lanka therefore is firmly of the view that country specific resolutions of this nature, intent on singling out countries for “naming and shaming”, and paying disproportionate attention towards Sri Lanka, is unwarranted. This is particularly so, at a time when notwithstanding the complexity of challenges following the end of a 30 year long terrorist conflict in 2009, and having averted what many feared would be a “humanitarian catastrophe”, Sri Lanka in a brief period of less than 4 year has made substantial progress in implementing a comprehensive process of reconciliation involving all communities. Especially those countries that have faced the challenge of emerging from protracted conflict or continue to be embroiled in such conflict, would particularly appreciate the significance of Sri Lanka's achievements since the ending of terrorism.

7. Those genuinely concerned about the future well being of the people of Sri Lanka, should encourage the country in its reconciliation process, rather than single it out for disproportionate attention in the Human Rights Council. Resorting to the latter, could result in the Council undermining itself and loosing its relevance.

8. Earlier today, I met with US Ambassador for Human Rights, Eileen Donahoe, and intimated to her GoSL’s position on the resolution. I conveyed to Ambassador Donahoe, that GoSL rejects entirely the premise on which this resolution is based, and as has been its consistent position, does not intend negotiating with the US on the text. I expressed the hope, that the US government and possible co-sponsors of this resolution, would do nothing to endanger the delicate reconciliation process ongoing in Sri Lanka, as well as the constructive engagement Sri Lanka is presently pursuing with the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner and the OHCHR, as well as our bilateral partners.

9. Madam Ambassador, I thank you for having provided GoSL an opportunity to present its views, and would like to add that this would be the only intervention we will make at this informal meeting.

Eight students of Loyola College in Tamil Nadu began a 'fast unto death' on Friday, making key demands including an independent, international inquiry into allegations of war crimes, and a referendum on Tamil Eelam for Tamils in the North-East.

In a statement issued in Tamil, the students argued that was has happened in Sri Lanka was not a case of mere war crimes or human rights violations but a planned genocide of Tamils, and therefore Indian Central and Local Government must acknowledge this and declare it so.

Stating that an international investigation and a referendum on independence were the only possible means of bringing justice to the Tamils, the students demanded that India must support it, whilst ensuring that Asian countries are not part of the international investigation.

Calling for an economic boycott of Sri Lanka, the students demanded that India severe its political relationship with Sri Lanka, and disestablish the Sri Lankan High Commission.

The students also urged the Tamil Nadu government to take action on the killing of Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy.

Editorial - 'Sri Lanka lets itself down' - published in the australian newspaper, The Age on Saturday:

ON DECEMBER 14, 2012, the 54 nations of the Commonwealth adopted a charter setting out for the first time the fundamental values underpinning their affiliation. Alongside democracy, human rights, peace and security, and freedom of expression are certain principles Australians tend to take for granted: the separation of powers, the rule of law and good governance. None stands alone. Democracy and human rights cannot be fully achieved if the rule of law is not in place; democracy cannot stand if there is not freedom of expression; and without good governance all the rest falls away.

Before Commonwealth leaders meet in Sri Lanka later this year, it would be wise to consider whether the host nation is abiding by the principles of the charter. We raise this matter because Sri Lanka's parliament in January, defying a ruling of the nation's highest court, voted to remove the chief justice. The action has been damned by the International Commission of Jurists, the Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Canada, which will boycott the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting if it is held in Colombo.

Foreign Minister Bob Carr says it is better to foster dialogue rather than isolate a nation over its human rights record, and he vows Australia will go to CHOGM. The Age believes Sri Lankans already have endured far too much. Australia needs to stop mollycoddling the Sri Lankan government and issue a rebuke, letting it know we are appalled by repeated failures on human rights.