For years, ships from other countries, laden with oil, machinery, clothes and cargo, sped past Hambantota, Sri Lanka, a small town near India as part of the world’s brisk trade with China.

Now, China is investing millions to turn this fishing hamlet into a booming new port, furthering an ambitious trading strategy in South Asia that is reshaping the region and forcing India to rethink relations with its neighbors.

As trade in the region grows more lucrative, China has been developing port facilities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and it is planning to build railroad lines in Nepal. These projects, analysts say, are part of a concerted effort by Chinese leaders and companies to open and expand markets for their goods and services in a part of Asia that has lagged behind the rest of the continent in trade and economic development.

But these initiatives are irking India, whose government worries that China is expanding its sphere of regional influence by surrounding India with a “string of pearls” that could eventually undermine India’s pre-eminence and potentially rise to an economic and security threat.

“There is a method in the madness in terms of where they are locating their ports and staging points,” Kanwal Sibal, a former Indian foreign secretary who is now a member of the government’s National Security Advisory Board, said of China. “This kind of effort is aimed at counterbalancing and undermining India’s natural influence in these areas.”

India and China, the world’s two fastest-growing economies, have a history of tense relations. They share a contested Himalayan border over which they fought a war in 1962. India has given shelter to the Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet as China exerted control over it. And China has close military ties with Pakistan, with which India has fought three wars.

But the two countries also do an increasingly booming business with each other. China recently became India’s largest trading partner, and both have worked together to advance similar positions in global trade and climate change negotiations.

Chinese officials deny ulterior motives for their projects in South Asia. And top Indian leaders have tried to play down talk of a rivalry with China, saying there is enough room in the world for both economies to rise simultaneously.

As recently as the 1990s, China’s and India’s trade with four South Asian nations — Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan — was roughly equal. But over the last decade, China has outpaced India in deepening ties.

For China, these countries provide both new markets and alternative routes to the Indian Ocean, which its ships now reach through a narrow channel between Indonesia and Malaysia known as the Strait of Malacca. India, for its part, needs to improve economic ties with its neighbors to broaden its growth and to help foster peace in the region. Some of the shift in trade toward China comes from heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, which has hampered trade between the two countries. But China has also made inroads in nations that have been more friendly with India, including Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Moreover, protectionist sentiments have marred India’s relationships with its neighbors. South Asia has a free-trade agreement, but countries that are part of the pact get few benefits, economists say, because India and its neighbors refuse to lower tariffs on many goods and services to protect their own businesses. By contrast, the countries of Southeast Asia have minimal or no duties on most goods and services that they import from one another.

India has had some success in establishing closer ties with Sri Lanka, with which it has a strong bilateral trade agreement. But China has become a partner of choice for big projects here like the Hambantota port. China’s Export-Import Bank is financing 85 percent of the cost of the $1 billion project, and China Harbour Engineering, which is part of a state-owned company, is building it. Similar arrangements have been struck for an international airport being built nearby.

Sri Lankan officials want to turn Hambantota, which was devastated by the 2004 tsunami and is the home constituency for President Mahinda Rajapaksa, into the second-largest urban area in the country after the capital, Colombo. (It is the ninth-biggest today.) The government is also building a convention center, a government complex and a cricket stadium.

Sri Lanka needs foreign assistance to make those dreams a reality, because the government’s finances are stretched by a large debt it accumulated in paying for a 25-year civil war that ended in May. In 2009, the country borrowed $2.6 billion from the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Rajapaksa has said he offered the Hambantota port project first to India, but officials there turned it down. In an interview, Jaliya Wickramasuriya, Sri Lanka’s ambassador to the United States, said the country looked for investors in America and around the world, but China offered the best terms. “We don’t have favorites,” he said.

Still, Sri Lankan officials have refused to disclose information that would allow analysts to compare China’s proposals with those submitted by other bidders. The country has also kept private details about other projects that are being financed and built by China, including a power plant, an arts center and a special economic zone.

The Sunday Times, a Sri Lankan newspaper, recently estimated that China was involved in projects totaling $6 billion — more than any other country, including India and Japan, which have historically been big donors and investors in Sri Lanka.

Harsha de Silva, a prominent economist in Colombo and an adviser to the country’s main opposition party, said the Sri Lankan government appeared to prefer awarding projects to China because it did not impose “conditions for reform, transparency and competitive bidding” that would be part of contracts with countries like India and the United States or organizations like the World Bank.

Other analysts say China is winning big projects here and elsewhere in the region because its companies offer lower costs. Chinese companies are also competitive because they have acquired a lot of expertise in building large infrastructure projects in China, said Jerry Lou, Morgan Stanley’s China strategist.

In 10 years, Chinese companies have become the biggest suppliers to ports of cranes used to move shipping containers, displacing South Korean and Japanese companies, he said. “They are running at very high efficiency and at the lowest costs,” Mr. Lou said. “China is a game-changer, rather than a new player in the world’s construction industry.”

India is starting to respond to China’s growing influence by becoming more aggressive in courting trade partners. India recently signed a free-trade deal with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and South Korea. Officials have even begun talking about signing a trade deal with China to bolster exports.

India’s chief trade negotiator, D. K. Mittal, acknowledged that the country’s economic ties with its neighbors were not as strong as they should be and blamed political distrust between the countries. But he said leaders were now determined to improve economic relations, something he said was highlighted in a recent agreement with Bangladesh.

In that deal, India agreed to sell electricity to Bangladesh, provide it with a $1 billion line of credit for infrastructure projects and reduce tariffs on imports. Bangladesh agreed to allow Indian ships to use a port that is being redeveloped by China. “The political leaders have to rise above and say, ‘I want this to happen,’ ” Mr. Mittal said in an interview. “That’s what the leaders are realizing.”

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.

Sri Lanka’s crackdown on the media have deteriorated over the last few months, with yet more journalists arrested, kicked out of the country or shut down.

The Committee to Protect Journalists expressed alarm in January over reports that journalists in Sri Lanka have been subjected to government intimidation, arrests, censorship, and harassment in the aftermath of the presidential election.

“We are receiving reports of government retribution against journalists who sided with the opposition in the election. Given the ugly history of attacks on journalists in Sri Lanka, we call on President Mahina Rajapaksa to ensure the safety of all journalists in Sri Lanka, and to use his new mandate to reverse the repressive trends of the past several years,” said Bob Dietz, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. 

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) appealed to the President to put a stop to arrests and intimidation of journalists working for privately-owned and foreign media.

“This wave of post-election violence could cast a lasting stain on the start of President Rajapaksa’s second term and bodes ill for the political climate during the coming years,” the organization said in a press release.

“It is quite normal for journalists and privately-owned media to side with a candidate before and during a democratic election but it is unacceptable for them to the victims of reprisals once the elections are over,” the press freedom organization added.

The authorities also ordered the deportation of Swiss journalist Karin Wenger, before later rescinding it.

Wenger, who covered the presidential election for Swiss public radio station DRS, had received a letter from the immigration department ordering her to leave the country within 48 hours.

“I fear I have been kicked out for asking uncomfortable questions at a govt. press conference,” Wenger, who is based in New Delhi, told AFP.

AFP quoted a government spokesman as saying the order was issued on the basis of “false information.”

Meanwhile, the Colombo headquarters of Lanka, a Sinhalese-language weekly that supports the Sinhala nationalist JVP opposition party, were closed by the authorities, 24 hours after its editor, Chandana Sirimalwatte, was taken into custody by the Criminal Investigation Department.

Separately, the offices of the Lanka-e-News website were also surrounded by the police. "The Criminal Investigations Department officers have surrounded the Lanka office and sealed it today," the web edition of the paper said.

Prageeth Ekneligoda, a political reporter for Lanka eNews, disappeared on the night of January 24. He was described by colleagues as a political analyst who supported opposition presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka, and they feared he had been abducted.

Dozens of Sri Lankan journalists are living in exile abroad because of the dangerous and sometimes deadly situation for media workers in Sri Lanka, according to rights groups.

Official figures show nine journalists have been killed and another 27 assaulted in the past three years in Sri Lanka. Activists say over a dozen journalists have been killed.

Human Rights Watch said it feared the latest attacks against the media were aimed at silencing critics ahead of parliamentary elections due shortly.

We today affirm a principle that is common to all humankind: the right of a people to choose.

Tamil Eelam exists because we do.

The referendum for Tamil Eelam continues across the globe: Britain with its historical ties is but one more link in that chain.

Tamil Eelam exists because a scattered and oppressed people has chosen. As in 1977 but this time from across all the corners of the earth.

We assert a principle that has been formulated time and again in history, not least by the founding fathers of America and our own Thanthai Chelva. To quote Tom Paine: “The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist …"

We have today entered into a compact. We, the living, have mandated Tamil Eelam.

 And in doing so we honour those who have died in the vanni and elsewhere, those who have died for our deepest dream, the dream of Tamil Eelam.

We say to them: you remain in our hearts. Though the world may deny you, we do not, for today, we say again that your dream is our dream.

They tried to destroy us: they bombed us, they starved us, they killed our children, destroyed our hospitals and killed the wounded and maimed.

But they have failed

And Tamil Eelam lives.

We cannot dedicate. We cannot consecrate.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who died for Eelam have thus far advanced. As Lincoln said, so say we: that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.

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.

British Tamils made a united democratic call for the independence of Tamil Eelam in a nationwide referendum held over the weekend of January 30 and 31.

Inside the Ballroom at the Park Lane Hotel in London, after two days of voting, the results were announced to a jubilant crowd: 64,256 of 64,692 voters said yes to Tamil Eelam (99.33%), whilst 185 voted against (0.29%) and 251 votes were void (0.39%).

This was the latest in a string of referendums taking place in Tamil Diaspora strongholds across the world, in countries such as Norway, France, Canada and Germany.

The referendums are a re-mandate of principles endorsed by the 1976 Vaddukoddai Resolution, where Tamils of Sri Lanka declared that they believed the only answer to the decades of discrimination and persecution was an independent, sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the contiguous North and East parts of Sri Lanka.

The resolution, ratified through an electoral victory the following year, proved that the overwhelming majority of Tamils desired independence from Sinhala oppression.

This British referendum was conducted in 65 polling stations situated across the country’s major towns and cities, with a heavy focus on the capital.

Outside of London polling stations, open on Saturday only, ran from Glasgow to Southampton. Eager voters remained undeterred by icy motorway conditions and set off in their thousands.

Polling stations reported an evening rush as those who had been at work or busy with their children at Saturday school during the day, arrived just in time to cast their votes. 

Across the capital, polling stations were open both days of the weekend. Widespread engineering works on the tube and even a layer of snow did not stop Tamil Londoners getting out in force both days. 

Organisers indicated that almost one thousand votes were cast within the first hour.

Observers at one polling station reported that a steady stream of cars, sometimes packed full with three generations of Tamils, pulled up outside the polling station.

At another polling booth, a grandmother dressed in a red and yellow saree in  the colours of Eelam was assisted out of the car by her grandson wearing a hoodie declaring “STOP the GENOCIDE of TAMILS”.

At one booth, Mrs Sathyabhama Kumarasamy, now 89 years of age, spoke of her memories of voting in the 1976 referendum and remarked passionately "I love my country as I love my mother and that is why I have come to vote in the referendum".

Young Tamils, born and raised in Britain, made up a large proportion of voters.

A medical student with her first semester exams approaching took time out of her revision schedule to make an early morning visit to the polls. “This is my duty to my people,” she explained.

Children wrapped up in woollen hats and scarves, although too young to vote, frequently accompanied their parents.

Holding their parents’ hands, they watched eagerly as their parents had their identities verified and were given yellow ballot sheets.

One father, a social worker in North-West London, carried his young daughter in one arm as he filled the ballot paper, all the while talking to her about his belief in Tamil Eelam and why he was voting for it.

Both young and old had taken time to volunteer. Determined that no one should be denied the opportunity of democracy, volunteers arranged a makeshift transport service, driving elderly voters to and from the polling stations.

Due to the unexpected influx of voters at polling stations such as South Harrow, volunteers were drafted in from other areas to assist.

Independent observers declared that the referendum, organised by the Tamil National Council, and conducted with the cooperation of a number of British Tamil organisations, had run very smoothly.

As Sunday evening drew near, those who had been unable to vote earlier flocked to the polling stations. Queues were building up outside, as voters glanced nervously at their watches.

One shop keeper, visibly short of breath, spoke of how he had shut up shop ten minutes early and ran to make sure he had time to cast his vote.

Given the long queues, officials at some polling stations were compelled to extend the voting time by two hours in order to accommodate the unprecedented numbers.

But by 8pm all polling stations had closed, and counting began at various locations across London.

Under the glistening lights of the Ballroom, guests including several members of parliament, councillors and journalists, settled down for supper as the final votes were counted.

Volunteers and independent officials, under the scrutiny of referendum monitors, painstakingly examined each and every yellow ballot paper that was counted in the central London Park Lane hotel.

Professor Bryan Woodriff, chairman of the referendum monitoring committee, wove his way through the crowd of vote counters, inspecting the proceedings and discussing the conduct of the referendum with other members of the monitoring committee.

At other locations across London, officials there were engaged in a similar process, examining each ballot paper and ensuring that all were accurately tallied, all under the eagle eyes of independent election monitors.

Shortly after 11pm on Sunday, the Ballroom erupted with cheering and applauds as Professor Woodriff announced the final result.

With no clear census information, an accurate number of eligible voters remains impossible to verify, but the guests expressed absolute satisfaction at a turn out of over 64000.

Although a result of over 99% in favour of independence was widely celebrated, the prevailing mood amongst British Tamils appeared to be one of vindication than elation.

The night concluded with one of the speakers asking the crowd ‘What do we want?’

‘Tamil Eelam!’ they cried out in unison.

Perturbed by such an overwhelming call for independence and the significant national media coverage the referendum received, Sri Lankan officials have swiftly attempted to discredit its significance.

Sri Lanka’s Defence spokesman, Minister Kehiliya Rambukwella, was reported to have said they were not concerned by any referendum conducted by any community or country.   

The Tamil Diaspora however remains defiant and resolute. They want Tamil Eelam.

Tamils in another three mainland European countries have mandated Eelam at referenda held in January. Over 99 percent of the voters in Germany, Switzerland and Holland who cast their ballots on the weekend of 23 and 24 January mandated the formation of Tamil Eelam as a solution to the oppression of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

99.2 percent of voters said yes to Tamil Eelam in an impressive turn out of more than 90% of eligible voters in Germany. 23,089 voters participated in the poll in 110 centres across the country and 22,904 of them said yes. 136 voters said no and 49 votes were invalid.

The International Human Rights Association in Bremen conducted the referendum on the question of forming an independent and sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island of Sri Lanka.

Around 25,000 eligible Eezham Tamil voters are estimated to be present in Germany.

No record of voter registration was maintained considering the confidentiality of the identity of the voters. They were permitted to vote after verification of identity and eligibility. Indelible ink was applied to mark participation.

99.49 percent of 16,441 voters who participated in the referendum in Switzerland mandated the formation of an independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island of Sri Lanka.

The referendum was organised by a coalition of 2nd generation Eelam Tamils in Switzerland and the task of conducting the ballot process was undertaken by an independent election commission that was headed by M. Pagani, ex-Mayor of the city of Biel and included journalists, politicians and members of Young Socialist Party (JUSO) of Switzerland.

Estimating the number of eligible voters in Switzerland as 25,000 the organisers in their official website tamilelection.ch put the turnout at 65.76%. Considering the conditions of the Tamil diaspora in Switzerland, much varied in facing the brunt of the struggle in several ways, the turnout was considered to be very impressive by many diaspora observers, reported TamilNet.

Well-covered by the Swiss media, Pia Holenstein, a member of the federal parliament, described the process as something neatly organised and exemplary. Reporters of major media outlets such as NZZ Sonntag and Tages Anzeiger were present to cover the news of the referendum, the organisers said.

Of the 2,750 voters who participated in the poll in Holland, 99.2 percent aspired for the formation of Eelam. 2,728 said yes, 9 voted no and 13 votes were invalid.

The poll organised by an independent group of the diaspora in the Netherlands was conducted in 15 centres across the country under the supervision of non-Tamil election officials.

The organisers estimated roughly 4,000 eligible Eelam Tamil voters in the country and said the turnout was 68.7 percent. As the size of the country and the number of voters were small, the organisers were largely depending on a door-to-door campaign for participation.

A comment commonly heard in the four non English-speaking European countries, Germany, Switzerland and Holland, which went for the referendum last weekend, and in France where it was held in mid-December, was that the democratic exercise would have been much easier to organise, had there been a Tamil visual media providing adequate coverage.

Observers note that Tamils of Eelam origin have been consistent in their demand for Eelam. Polls have now been conducted in five mainland European countries, the United Kingdom and Canada, and in each case, over 99% of the voters have expressed their preference for the formation of Tamil Eelam.  

Sri Lanka’s military massacred as many as 40,000 Tamil civilians in the final onslaught against the Liberation Tigers in 2009, according to a former United Nations official with detailed knowledge of events, press reports said.

The former United Nations’ spokesperson in Sri Lanka, Gordon Weiss, has resigned from the UN after 14 years and returned home to Australia, where he was interviewed by ABC News.

“He’s now free to speak openly about the situation in Sri Lanka, for the first time and does so candidly and unflinchingly,” the media agency said.

“About 300,000 civilians, plus the Tamil Tiger forces, were trapped in an area of territory about the size of Central Park in New York,” says Weiss.

“They were within range of all the armaments that were being used, small and large, being used to smash the Tamil Tiger lines … the end result was that many thousands lost their lives.”

Gordon Weiss says his information comes from reliable sources who had a presence inside the battle zone, not Tamil civilians or fighters.

"The Sri Lankan government said many things which were either intentionally misleading, or were lies", Weiss told ABC’s reporter Eric Campbell.

Weiss says that after the war ended, a senior civil servant openly admitted that the authorities had deliberately underestimated the number of trapped civilians “as a ploy to allow the government to get on with its business.”

The United Nations responded to Weiss’s comments by declaring that he did not represent the organization, and that they were his personal views.

“These views, communicated to the media are his personal ones and do not represent those of the United Nations,” said the Office of the UN Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka.

“The overall view of the UN on any particular situation comes from statements by the Secretary General or other senior UN figures,” the statement said.

“The UN repeatedly and publicly said there were unacceptably high civilian casualties from the fighting in the last months of the war, as a result of the LTTE forcibly preventing people leaving and the Government's use of heavy weapons in areas close to thousands of civilians,” the statement added.

“While we maintained internal estimates of casualties, circumstances did not permit us to independently verify them on the ground, and therefore we do not have verifiable figures of how many casualties there were,” the UN said.

The Sri Lankan government meanwhile said Weiss was spreading false information, about the last stages of the war.

“That is absolutely wrong information,” Director General of the Media Centre for National Security Lakshman Hullugalle told Daily Mirror.

The paper quoted Hulugalle as saying "there was sufficient information provided at the time and months thereafter to confirm that such a large number of civilian deaths did not occur. We were able to show journalists through live footage how the LTTE were harassing civilians and how we were ensuring the safe passage of civilians."

Hulugalle insists that no other organizations made such claims in the past 8 months since the war, the paper said, quoting “[t]here were so many foreign and local journalists allowed in those areas. Therefore if there was any truth in this no one would have waited for 8 months to talk about it. And we have had no such complaints coming from any organization."

Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama rejected all claims made by the former UN spokesperson saying Weiss had previously made such false statements.

“He is someone who has been making such false statements and we wholly reject these claims. He is also someone who has been sent out of the country,” Bogollagama said.

While Hulugalle asserts that "so many foreign and local journalists allowed in those areas," media ban by Sri Lanka was widely known and was reported by AFP in April, quoting the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF), "[i]t is a disgrace that this war is being waged without independent journalists present...With a major humanitarian crisis and war crimes clearly taking place, the government must heed the international community’s calls for a ceasefire and for better access for humanitarian workers and journalists."

Soon after Sri Lanka’s declared victory over the LTTE in May 2009, the British newspaper, The Times, concluded an extensive investigation into the last days of the offensive and confirmed that up to 20,000 Tamil civilians were slaughtered.

Pointing out that not only the United Nations but several Western governments knew of the ongoing slaughter of Tamil civilians by the Sri Lanka Army, but kept silent for fear of upsetting the Colombo Government, The Times also demanded international action to prevent further atrocities.

The Times reported that "UN chief knew Tamil civilian toll had reached 20,000," and that "UN officials told Vijar Nambiar, Ban Ki Moon’s chief of staff, that their figures indicated a likely final death toll of more than 20,000, during a briefing in preparation for Mr Ban’s visit to the region on May 23."

“Such a monstrous collusion in covering up an atrocity must not go unchallenged. If the UN Human Rights Council refuses to investigate what has happened, the West must do so forthwith,” the paper said in an editorial.

“The silence of those who were warned of civilian deaths in Sri Lanka is shameful. They must speak out now to prevent future atrocities,” the editorial charged.

The Rajapakse regime’s behaviour has indeed confounded many international observers. After all President Rajapakse secured a convincing electoral victory against Sarath Fonseka in the recent presidential polls. The President also enjoys enormous popularity amongst the majority Sinhalese for leading the military victory against the LTTE and is widely regarded amongst them as a latter day Duttugemunu, the fabled slayer of Tamils from Sinhala mythology.

However, Rajapakse’s recent conduct is only surprising if it is interpreted as an attempt to shore up his position within the Sinhala polity. It is not: Rajapakse is understandably confident of his popularity and authenticity amongst the mainstream Sinhala polity.

The arrest and detention of the defeated opposition candidate makes much more sense as an act of international diplomacy. In pursing potentially criminal charges against Fonseka, Colombo is sending a resolute and unequivocal response to growing international demands for serious political reform in Sri Lanka.

In the months since the end of the war in May 2009 the international community has been increasingly insistent that Colombo facilitates a credible and internationally supported investigation and prosecution of Sri Lanka’s war crimes and that it works with Tamil political representatives to find a meaningful solution to the Tamil question.

Although entirely reasonable within a liberal framework, to President Rajapakse and his Sinhala supporters, such demands fundamentally challenge the ethno nationalist vision of a Sinhala first nation state that has driven Sri Lankan political dynamics since independence.

Despite his previous close association with the Rajapakse regime, Fonseka’s campaign for the presidential post was closely associated with both these issues. He stood as a common candidate for a coalition of parties that included the main Tamil party, the Tamil National Alliance. Fonseka also pointedly raised the war crimes issue and possible war crimes trials both during the campaign and after.

Although widely supported by western nations, Fonseka’s positions on these issues put him entirely at odds with the dominant Sinhala first ethos of southern politics. A meaningful solution to the Tamil national question would inevitably have to confront and dismantle Sinhala domination of the state and its resources while a credible investigation and prosecution of Sri Lanka’s war crimes would unsettle deeply held notions that the Sinhala state’s violence against Tamils is both a necessary and legitimate part of the Sinhala Buddhist order.

Fonseka’s platform critically threatened presumptions that have been the bedrock of southern politics. It was common knowledge in the south that the TNA supported Fonseka in return for the pledge that if successful he would engage in a serious process of political reform.

Incidentally, Fonseka was in a meeting with a Tamil and Muslim politician when Sri Lankan military police stormed into his office and dragged him away to incarceration in the Naval Compound.

Fonseka’s association with the war crimes issue also raised hostility in the south. Early on in the campaign in an unguarded interview with Sri Lanka’s Sunday Leader, Fonseka admitted that the Defence Secretary Gothabaya Rajapakse had sanctioned the murder of unarmed LTTE political officials. Although the UNP, the main opposition Sinhala party, quickly sought to disown these comments, Fonseka went onto reiterate his allegations against the Sinhala military. In a press conference just hours before his arrest Fonseka declared his willingness to cooperate as a witness in an investigation of Sri Lanka’s war crimes.

By arresting and possibly court-martialling Fonseka, Colombo is trying to block all attempts to reform Sri Lanka through peaceful regime change. It seems likely that the forthcoming parliamentary polls will only confirm President Rajapakse’s status as the champion defender of Sinhala Buddhist order and further confound Sri Lanka’s deepening ethnic polarization.

Fonseka’s short lived and disastrously unsuccessful political career lays bare the tenacity of Sinhala Buddhist sentiment within the Sinhala polity. Far from being a moderate or a liberal, Fonseka was chosen as the common opposition candidate precisely because of his apparently unquestioned Sinhala chauvinist credentials.

As head of the armed forces he merrily slaughtered tens of thousands of Tamil civilians in the Sri Lankan crusade to militarily annihilate the threat of Tamil nationalism. He has also spoken candidly in support of the Sinhala first vision of the Sri Lanka.

Despite these qualifications, President Rajapakse’s campaign successfully seized on Fonseka’s alliance with the TNA to charge that the retired army general was now working with ‘pro LTTE forces’ to sell out the Sinhalese people and ‘divide the country’.

Fonseka’s performances in the Sinhala districts was dismal and demonstrates that anyone, even the man who slaughtered tens of thousands of Tamils, will be branded a traitor for even appearing to compromise with Tamil representatives.

Sinhala democracy it appears has no space for Tamil identity.

This is also not merely a problem associated with the Rajapakse government. Remember the UNP led pro western regime of J. R Jeywardene. In 1977, soon after taking power on a massive wave of Sinhala electoral support Jeyawardene stood by and condoned the anti Tamil pogrom that convulsed the island. This was followed by further bouts of Sinhala violence culminating in the vile massacres of 1983.

It must also be remembered that it was explicitly UNP parliamentarians who in June 1981 ordered the arson of the Jaffna public library and watched from their hotel balconies as the Tamils’ prized collection of literature went up in flames.

The UNP government that came to power in the December 2001 elections and participated in the Norwegian mediated peace process of 2002 – 2006 came to power primarily on the back of Tamil and Muslim votes. Most forget – or ignore – the fact that President Kumaratunga’s exhausted and discredited SLFP still won the majority of the Sinhala votes on a platform of no surrender to the Tamils.

Although the peace process ushered in a period of relative stability, especially for the exhausted population of Vanni, there was no progress on core issues such as resettling IDP’s and dismantling the much loathed high security zones.

When the LTTE proposed mechanisms such as the ISGA and PTOMS that were intended to serve a merely administrative purpose they were hurriedly quashed by Presidential or High Court decree.

Even if a UNP regime were to come to power at this stage it would continue to operate within the boundaries of Sinhala ethnocracy. Any Colombo government that attempted to reach out to the Tamils would contend with the possibility of massive popular unrest, defections by disgruntled Sinhala parliamentarians, the possibility of politically fatal reprimands from the Sangha and of course executive or judicial prohibitions. There is also now the bloated and heavily militarised Sinhala security infrastructure that is completely wedded to the Sinhala first world view.

These deep ethnic fissures that run through Sri Lanka’s democracy have for decades been hidden beneath the long running civil war.

For the past thirty years Sri Lanka has been able to used the rhetoric of fighting ‘terrorism’ to conceal the Sinhala polity’s deep seated antipathy to acknowledging the political rights and status of the Tamil people as well as its willingness to condone and sanction massive and retaliatory violence against Tamil civilians.

The international community’s has also played a role in this concealment. While the war with the LTTE raged Sri Lanka was generally regarded in the west as a good little liberal democracy that was struggling against a ‘ruthless terrorist’ organisation but still tenaciously holding onto at least some of its democratic and liberal traditions.

Of course the Tamils were always structurally excluded from the liberal democratic space. As the recent presidential poll demonstrates, electoral competition between the Sinhalese always turns on the promotion of the Sinhala first vision; those who electorally court the Tamils forsake the support of the Sinhalese.

At the last presidential elections the UNP paid a heavy electoral price in the Sinhala districts for backing Fonseka’s platform. It is likely that in the forthcoming parliamentary elections, the UNP will return to the safe womb of Sinhala ethnocracy. It has already ditched its former Tamil and Muslim alliance partners in preparation.

Sri Lanka’s apparent liberal norms have also never extended to the Tamils. Tamils can be arbitrarily murdered, abducted, ethnically cleansed from whole districts, have their assets expropriated and stripped and their cultural landmarks vandalised or destroyed without any recourse to fundamental rights, due process or other legal redress.

While sections of the international community acknowledged these failures most international actors firmly believed that once the military threat from the LTTE had been contained, Sri Lanka would quickly resolve these issues and incorporate the Tamils on an equitable and dignified basis within an all island political system.

The Rajapakse regime’s failure to live up to these expectations has produced a noticeable diplomatic chill in Colombo’s relations with former western allies. Fonseka’s campaign promised to restore relations with the west by making progress on war crimes and the Tamil question in order to restore western political, military and economic support.

Rajapakse’s electoral triumph has laid bare the contradictions in Sri Lanka’s relationship with the western block. Western states have thus far backed Sri Lanka in the belief that it is progressing towards a stable and inclusive liberal democracy. Meanwhile many Sinhalese have believed that the west connived in the persecution of the Tamils because western capitals accepted the legitimacy of the Sinahala Buddhist order.

When Gotabaya ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians or when he sanctioned the murder of unarmed LTTE political officials, he could not have expected the level of alarm this caused in western capitals.

After all Sri Lanka was simply doing what it had always done with western backing and in full view of the international community, it was slaughtering Tamils and assassinating LTTE officials. What could be wrong that?

Just as the Rajapakse regime is causing consternation in western capitals, western insistence on the rule of law and an inclusive political solution is causing consternation in Colombo. While Sri Lanka is behaving to type, the west’s response in Colombo’s eyes has altered beyond measure.

Ironically it is only after the defeat of the allegedly anti liberal LTTE that the western liberal project is finally confronting the real impediment to creating a liberal and inclusive polity on the island; ascendant Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism and the now heavily militarised ethnocratic state.

Dismantling these structures will be far more of a challenge than militarily defeating the LTTE or destroying the fledgling Tamil de facto state.

How western policy makers respond to this challenge will determine the prospects for future peace and stability in Sri Lanka.

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.

On Thursday (January 7), UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Philip Alston called for "an independent inquiry to be established to carry out an impartial investigation into war crimes" in Sri Lanka. In particular, Alston has given the UN's imprimatur to the authenticity of video footage apparently showing summary executions of prisoners in January 2009 in the final stages of the civil war.

The Sri Lankan government has, unsurprisingly, rejected the video as "fabricated", despite the UN's reliance on three independent experts in assessing it, accusing Alston of bias and a personal crusade. Any investigation would have to involve both main presidential candidates: sitting president Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has been the commander-in-chief of the defence forces, and General Sarath Fonseka, who was in charge of the army.

Exactly a year ago today, Lasantha Wickrematunge, a newspaper editor, was gunned down in broad daylight for being critical of Rajapaksha's government. No one has been charged to this day but allegations of a government hand in the killing are widely made. General Fonseka has referred to the Tamil Nadu politicians as "jokers" and in an interview with Canada's National Post he made comments widely seen as ultra-nationalistic or racist in nature: I strongly believe that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese, but there are minority-communities and we treat them like our people ... They can live in this country with us. But they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue things.

These two men with others share the responsibility for deaths and destruction in a war that killed more than 80,000 combatants and civilians in the three years prior to May 2009 alone.

On this current president's watch, Sri Lanka has been stripped of a lucrative tariff concession from the EU on the grounds of poor governance and human rights violations, at least three Tamil elected parliamentarians have been killed, extrajudicial killings and abductions are common, at least eight journalists have been killed and many armed paramilitary groups have been created with government sponsorship.

With this background the majority Sinhala vote is expected to be split almost in half at the presidential election on 26 January. Ironically, Tamils are presumed to be the kingmakers.

However, Tamils have no appetite for an election at a time when they haven't even begun to rebuild their own lives and livelihood destroyed during many years of war that only ended just seven months ago. They live generally in fear under military and armed paramilitary occupation with human rights abuses accepted as part of life.

Tamils voted overwhelmingly in a general election in 1977 for separation, prior to the introduction of the sixth amendment to Sri Lanka's constitution, which disallows the espousal of separation. Despite this limited freedom of speech, Tamils have engaged in many such elections since 1977 and before.

Tamil leaders have in good faith signed agreements with many Sinhala leaders to resolve their differences. Successive governments have withdrawn unilaterally from these agreements complaining that the party that signed the agreement has given in too much to Tamils' demands. The latest such casualty in a long list of agreements since independence was the ceasefire agreement signed by one of the main parties with international sponsorship, which was abrogated unilaterally by the Rajapaksha regime.

Now Fonseka, who is the joint candidate of two main opposition parties, has signed another "agreement" with the main Tamil party. One of the points in the "agreement" and also in one of the previous agreements (Indo-Sri Lanka accord) is the merger of northern and eastern provinces, which together make up the Tamil homeland. Not a day went by before the president played to the Sinhala nationalists by saying he would never agree to a merger if re-elected.

Is history repeating itself? One wonders.

Just as with the previous agreements, this may have been signed by the Tamil leaders in good faith to generate some short-term benefits. But if the then ANC leaders had succumbed to international pressure and accrued short-term benefits that compromised their long-term goals, black South Africans would still be second-class citizens in their own land.

Further suspicions are raised by the fact that this "agreement" is with a presidential candidate who is claiming to relinquish executive powers – meaning he wouldn't have the powers to implement it. Furthermore, agreed points are not listed in his formal manifesto, so he will not have the Sinhala masses mandate. And JVP, one of the main coalition partners, hasn't signed the "agreement".

One hopes that history doesn't judge the current Tamil leadership as betrayers of Tamil nationalism for which the party was originated in the first place.

As Max Lerner said: "When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is still an evil". 

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.

Tamil activists in America have been rapidly stepping up a boycott campaign, urging consumers to make an ethical choice and refuse to purchase goods made in Sri Lanka.

The latest in this movement was a viral video released by “Boycott Sri Lanka” as part of their “No Blood for Panties” video series.  

Less than 10 days since the release of the video it has attracted the attention of many people in the textile industry of Sri Lanka and even US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Patricia Butenis.

“We have seen reports of the boycott. Private citizens have organized the action,” said the ambassador.

“In the United States, citizens have the right to organise such campaigns and to decide what they buy.”

The light-hearted video has already had nearly 10,000 views and is aimed at persuading consumers to boycott Sri Lankan made lingerie, a major industry for the country which supplies major brands such as Victoria’s Secret.

Sri Lanka’s textile industry netted a record $3.47 billion from EU markets last year, making it the country’s top source of foreign exchange, followed by remittances of $3 billion and tea exports of $1.2 billion.

The USA was Sri Lanka’s single most important trading partner, receiving 23% of Sri Lankan exports, and 40% of Sri Lanka’s garment exports, amounting to $1.9 billion in 2008.

"Sri Lanka uses tax revenue from the textile industry to oppress Tamil civilians and detain them in IDP internment camps," explained Anjali Manivannan from Boycott Sri Lanka.

"No Blood For Panties sends the powerful message that buying 'Made in Sri Lanka' items and supporting state-sponsored human rights violations is unsexy. It sends the message that being a conscious consumer is where true sexiness is."

Michael O’Rourke of Dimension7, directed the series of videos.

"The story narrative of No Blood For Panties takes on the idea of how events in the far corners of the world impact our very personal lives," said O'Rourke.

"This video series turns the popular axiom of 'sex sells' on its head by using the same approach to actually promote activism."

The release of the video coincides with a series of protests being held across the USA.

Four protests have been held in Atlanta since September at North Point Mall, a super-regional shopping mall serving the affluent part of the metropolitan Atlanta.

Protestors held placards and distributed leaflets as protestors across the country united. Similar rallies were held in Florida and San Francisco with brands such as Gap and Victoria’s Secret.

"The response from the public was very encouraging. There were about ten thousand cars cross that junction in those four hours, and we had a big "BOYCOTT SRILANKA" sign in the centre, which drew attention of the drivers; we were able to see most of the passengers in all lanes looking at the signs. Some of the drivers crossed lanes to get the information about the Boycott and picked the flyers," a Florida protest organizer said.

Activists in Washington DC and Delaware targeted Banana Republic stores, while in New York a large mobile billboard was used. A truck with a large billboard showing images of Tamil refugee suffering drove along popular shopping clusters in New York city, including 34th Street and Broadway. Lighting arrangements in the truck enabled the campaign to extend until early evening 7:00 p.m.

Organizers for the campaign said that the campaign will continue on a regular basis. "If sufficient donors show interest we are prepared to activate this campaign frequently to have maximum impact," an organizing member said.

The campaign places even more pressure on the Sri Lankan garment industry, with the recent suspension of the GSP Plus program. Campaigners have urged consumers across the globe to boycott Sri Lankan goods and encourage others to do follow.

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.