http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca201203/20120329another_batch_384_ex_ltte_cadres.htmThursday, March 29, 2012 - 5.25
GMT
Another batch of 384 ex LTTE cadres
to be integrated today
Three hundred and eighty four ex-LTTE
cadres who had completed their term of rehabilitation will reintegrated to the
society today.With the latest batch, 10,490 ex- LTTE combatants,
including 2,170 females have been rehabilitated and reintegrated in to the
society since the country was liberated from terrorism in May 2009, said
Commissioner General of Rehabilitation Brigadier Dinesh
Hettiarachchi.The last remaining group of former LTTE cadres will be
released by mid-2012 after providing them the mandatory 12 months
training.The former combatants receive training in vocational skills
before their release through the programs organized by Sri Lanka military to
earn a living on their own once released. The government has released Rs. 300
million to the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms to provide loans up
to a maximum of Rs.250,000 to the rehabilitated former LTTE cadres to start
their own employmentDuring and immediately after the final phase of the
Humanitarian Operation 11,700 LTTE cadres have surrendered to the government
security forces. The government has allocated Rs.750 million for the
rehabilitation process for this year and has spent Rs. 2.5 billion on the
rehabilitation of ex-LTTE cadres since May 2009.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/03/30/pol01.asp
US practising double standards
*Cabinet will decide on LLRC report implementation
*Some recommendations need changes in law
Nadira GUNATILLEKE
Even Israel has decided to quit the UNHRC, but, Sri Lanka has not taken a
decision to leave the UNHRC. Sri Lanka only wishes to point out the double
standards practised by the US on Israel and Sri Lanka at the UNHRC, Acting Media
Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena said.
Minister LakshmanYapa
Abeywardena
The Cabinet will take a decision on the strategy of implementing the LLRC
report recommendations. The Sri Lanka government has not made any official
decisions or statements on those issues yet, he said.
Addressing the weekly Cabinet press briefing at the Government Information
Department auditorium yesterday, he said that the LLRC was appointed by
President Mahinda Rajapaksa and its report has been presented to Cabinet and
Parliament.
“Sri Lanka needs a home grown solution for the ethnic issue.Some LLRC
recommendations have already been implemented and long term recommendations need
time and cannot be implemented within two or three months. Recommendations such
as decentralising power at grass root level need changes in laws etc,” he said.
Acting Minister Abeywardena pointed out that a Parliamentary Select Committee
(PSC) has been proposed to hold discussions and solve problems without creating
chaos in the South and without creating problems for anybody or anywhere.
The PSC is the best and highest place for the TNA to voice their ideas. Now
the TNA has things (voicing ideas) to do and a place to do (PSC).
“Under democracy, various persons express various opinions on various
topics/issues but those are their individual ideas and not the stand of the Sri
Lankan government. The official stand/statement of the Sri Lankan government is
yet to be announced on such issues. “The Jaffna Urban Council passed a proposal
stating that Sri Lanka should not give into US pressures and implement a home
grown solution.
The Sri Lankan government identified the need of solving the ethnic issue a
long time ago, appointed the LLRC, released its report and implemented all
possible recommendations long before the UNHRC sessions took place in Geneva.
This is because of the sincere desire of the government of Sri Lanka”, he added.
US practising double standards
*Cabinet will decide on LLRC report implementation
*Some recommendations need changes in law
Nadira GUNATILLEKE
Even Israel has decided to quit the UNHRC, but, Sri Lanka has not taken a
decision to leave the UNHRC. Sri Lanka only wishes to point out the double
standards practised by the US on Israel and Sri Lanka at the UNHRC, Acting Media
Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena said.
Minister LakshmanYapa
Abeywardena
The Cabinet will take a decision on the strategy of implementing the LLRC
report recommendations. The Sri Lanka government has not made any official
decisions or statements on those issues yet, he said.
Addressing the weekly Cabinet press briefing at the Government Information
Department auditorium yesterday, he said that the LLRC was appointed by
President Mahinda Rajapaksa and its report has been presented to Cabinet and
Parliament.
“Sri Lanka needs a home grown solution for the ethnic issue.Some LLRC
recommendations have already been implemented and long term recommendations need
time and cannot be implemented within two or three months. Recommendations such
as decentralising power at grass root level need changes in laws etc,” he said.
Acting Minister Abeywardena pointed out that a Parliamentary Select Committee
(PSC) has been proposed to hold discussions and solve problems without creating
chaos in the South and without creating problems for anybody or anywhere.
The PSC is the best and highest place for the TNA to voice their ideas. Now
the TNA has things (voicing ideas) to do and a place to do (PSC).
“Under democracy, various persons express various opinions on various
topics/issues but those are their individual ideas and not the stand of the Sri
Lankan government. The official stand/statement of the Sri Lankan government is
yet to be announced on such issues. “The Jaffna Urban Council passed a proposal
stating that Sri Lanka should not give into US pressures and implement a home
grown solution.
The Sri Lankan government identified the need of solving the ethnic issue a
long time ago, appointed the LLRC, released its report and implemented all
possible recommendations long before the UNHRC sessions took place in Geneva.
This is because of the sincere desire of the government of Sri Lanka”, he added.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/03/28/fea03.asp
The deliberate targeting of Sri Lanka:
How, why, and the use of Auxiliary Forces including Channel 4
Continued from March 20, 2012
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
Let me deal with what they have presented as their most damning evidence, the
pictures of the dead body of Prabhakaran’s son. The killing of a child is always
shocking and, unlike the celebrated Elie Wiesel, who excused the killing of
members of Osama bin Laden’s family on the grounds that ‘it was bin Laden
himself who placed them in harm’s way’, I do not think that is in any sense an
excuse. We must investigate what happened, and take action if this was
execution.
An Afghan man sits in the back of a bus with the body of a
person who was allegedly killed by a US soldier in Panjwai, Kandahar province,
Afghanistan onMarch 11, 2012.- AP
However the manner in which Channel 4 drums up evidence suggests that they
are more concerned with vindictiveness towards their enemies than justice. In
their anxiety to declare that the boy was tortured, they claim that they have
been told this by a Sri Lankan Army officer. However, in the transcript they
show, it appears that, when they asked this officer how the boy had been
treated, he simply responded ‘I got to know at the latter stages that they found
out where Prabhakaran is through his son’.
Then there is a description from a pathologist about how he had been killed,
a description that uses the word ‘likely’ three times. This uncertainty is
compounded in the response to the question Channel 4 posed about torture, having
declared that ‘clearly’ whoever killed him was trying to get information.
The answer is categorical that ‘There is no evidence on the body of physical
torture’. However, the obliging expert then claims that ‘if we can imagine the
situation he was in’, since there were five others ‘who may well have been
killed before he was killed’, and (this is now definite in what we can imagine),
he was shot ‘by someone standing in front of him with the end of the gun within
a few feet of his body, that would be a psychological torture in itself’. In
this extraordinarily tentative world in which the Channel 4 expert lives, the
alleged torture being characterized by a bizarre indefinite article too, this is
enough to claim that President Rajapaksa is guilty. The sequence ends with the
claim that, after several hypothetical steps, ‘the legal difficulties of linking
the top to the bottom are largely eliminated’.
I should add that this video does not seem, at first sight, to contain many
of the flaws of the previous video Channel 4 showed, which was initially dated
wrongly (with no explanation given when we showed that the metadata indicated
something else), with no editing of fragments in the wrong order with the
inclusion of one fragment filmed at a different time and perhaps even a
different place according to the reports the UN commissioned, with no
purportedly dead figure putting down his legs which led one apparently eccentric
expert to declare that is was possible he was drunk or sleeping or playing dead
while others were being shot through the head around him. The video of
Balachandran’s body - not actual killing which was shown in the other video,
which is bizarrely now connected to this through claims of a pattern - does not
seem tampered with, which is why I believe the incident should be investigated.
In the other case, it is obviously the video that should be investigated first,
and for this we or the UN needs to have the original videos Channel 4 showed,
not a copy as happened with the first video, when Channel 4 refused to give what
they showed to us or to the UN.
David Miliband
Osama bin
Laden
Channel 4 claimed to have received the initial video from a body called
Journalists for Democracy, which is the same body that supplied the UN with
another copy of that video, but one that differed in salient particulars that we
had pointed out. And this time round, to strengthen their case against the Sri
Lankan government, it is of course a representative of Journalists for Democracy
who is trotted out. Those who do not know the involvement of this group in
making the film in the first place would naturally be fooled, but it is sad that
governments also refer to Channel 4 approvingly, without bothering to study the
sleight of hand that is used.
Claims that civilians were knowingly targeted
The third case history, as Channel 4 terms the four charges that are made,
revolves around the claim that civilians were ‘knowingly targeted’. No evidence
for this is presented, but instead we have a lot of emotive footage taken
largely from Sri Lankan government footage, and then some generalizations that
do not mention the reasons for the claims made. David Miliband asserts that ‘the
fact that the LTTE were using civilians as human shields which in some cases
they were, is itself a war crime, doesn’t justify the shelling of those sites
and those individuals’. Sam Zarifi claims that ‘The evidence that’s available
right now strongly suggests that war crimes occurred’, while William Shabas,
described as a Human Rights Lawyer, claims that ‘There are strong presumptions,
when these attacks took place, that they were disproportionate, that civilians
may have been or civilian objects like hospitals may have been targeted’. No
evidence is given for the claims or what the lawyer describes, with great
circumspection, as presumptions.
The claims are strengthened by the assertion that the pro-government media
suggested no civilians had died in the offensive. On the contrary, what
government spokesmen were denying was that civilians were targeted. As Shabas
suggests, and as the United States and its allies have manifested time and time
again, collateral damage is inevitable when targeting terrorists who live and
work in the midst of civilians. The question is whether the force used was
proportionate. The Americans always claim that the force was proportionate, by
asserting that all those who were killed were terrorists, even though the poor
Pakistanis and Afghans and others whose relations are killed think otherwise.
But they obviously do not have the technological and other skills the West
commands to identify as positively as the West does who is a terrorist, and to
ensure that that identification is accepted by Western media.
In Sri Lanka, we were faced with the fact that the LTTE deliberately placed
heavy weaponry amongst civilians and in and near ‘civilian objects like
hospitals’. This is clearly stated by those who cannot be said to have been
prejudiced in favour of government in any way. First there is the letter from
Chris du Toit to the Commander of the Security Force Headquarters in the Vanni,
dated January 20th, which was a few days after Convoy 11 went in.
Du Toit wrote then, ‘It was reported to us that artillery and mortar bases
have been established in the general area of our communications hub from where
they deliver fire to your forces’. It must be remembered that the convoy went in
on January 16 and was meant to come out soon afterwards, but stayed on. At the
time we were told that it was because they hoped to persuade the LTTE to let
their staff in the North leave, though it is now insinuated that there was heavy
fighting during that time. In fact fighting seems to have been limited, for in
the four days between January 16 - 20, TamilNet alleged altogether 42 deaths
from what they claimed were artillery barrages, in contrast to the large numbers
alleged afterwards, when two figure and then three figure numbers became the
norm.
Certainly the forces were very anxious for the convoy to leave, precisely
because of what du Toit reports. When however the convoy did leave, part of it
remained behind to continue to try to persuade the LTTE to free local staff, an
exercise that proved fruitless even though we were told every day that success
was imminent, and therefore declared ceasefires, which proved fruitless, except
perhaps to allow the LTTE to redeploy its weapons.
This is what happened on the day we were accused of targeting the
humanitarian supply centre which forms the substance of Channel 4’s first case
history. On that very day the Bishop of Jaffna wrote to government requesting it
to enlarge the Safe Zone, and adding ‘We are also urgently requesting the LTTE
Tigers not to station themselves among the people in the safety zone and fire
their artillery shells and rockets at the Army. This will only increase more and
more the death of civilians thus endangering the safety of the people. I insist
that both parties must observe the Safety zone strictly’.
This was a request that the forces made through the ICRC too, which responded
on February 20, in a letter headed ‘Complaints about LTTE firing from the no
fire zone’, welcoming the demarcation of a new ‘safe zone’ It added however that
‘the ICRC would like to point out that not having been agreed upon by both
parties to the conflict with the aim to shelter the wounded, sick and civilians
from the effects of hostilities or with the aim to demilitarize it, the zone as
such is not specifically protected under International Humanitarian Law’.
This is the crux of the matter, glibly ignored by those who sought political
advantage through speaking up in a manner that would have helped the Tigers.
David Miliband is right to say that ‘Democratic governments are held to higher
standards than terrorist organizations’, though he was quite happy to connive in
the programme of secret renditions and torture that Craig Murray, the British
ambassador to Uzbekhistan who was dismissed for criticizing the excesses of New
Labour, reveals.
But it is also a fact that governments must defend their own citizens, and
they certainly cannot allow their own forces to be mown down like flies, by
refraining from firing on weapons which are targeting them. I cannot therefore
understand Chris du Toit’s request ‘that you inform your respective ground
commanders and artillery commanders not to deliver any artillery, mortar or
small arms fire into the general area of the hub’ since he had just said that
the forces were being fired upon ‘from artillery and mortar bases established in
the general area of the hub’.
The fact that not one single UN worker or member of a family was hurt then,
and indeed - though most had to stay on to the end - none even thereafter,
(except a girl who lost her leg because of a mine, if I remember right, laid of
course by the LTTE) is a tribute to the care exercised by our forces, in the
face of this ruthless use of civilians, and even more prominently the UN
officers who stayed on without proper authorization.
The strange case of Peter Mackay
Perhaps the most telling perversions in the latest Channel 4 film come with
regard to what is termed its first case study. This ‘begins on January 23 when
UN personnel from the last overland food convoy into the war zone became trapped
in the fighting’. This is actually not quite correct, because most of convoy 11
had gone back, but a few people chose to stay behind, contrary to what had been
agreed with government, in order to try, it was claimed, to persuade the LTTE to
allow UN workers who had been in the Vanni to leave.
The account relies heavily on a man called Peter Mackay, expanding on the
names given in previous such descriptions, by the Darusman Panel and by an
Australian called Gordon Weiss, who referred by name only to a man who was known
officially to have been present, Colonel Haroun, who had worked very well with
his Sri Lankan counterparts. The name of Peter Mackay, another Australian, does
not figure in the manifests of UN staff coming back to Vavuniya that are with
the forces. I do not think this was due just to carelessness, and I am sorry
that, though I have requested this, our Ministry of External Affairs has not got
the real story from the UN, whose trust Mackay seems to have betrayed - assuming
they were not aware of what he was up to, in contravention of his supposed job
description.
To be continued
The deliberate targeting of Sri Lanka:
How, why, and the use of Auxiliary Forces including Channel 4
Continued from March 20, 2012
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
Let me deal with what they have presented as their most damning evidence, the
pictures of the dead body of Prabhakaran’s son. The killing of a child is always
shocking and, unlike the celebrated Elie Wiesel, who excused the killing of
members of Osama bin Laden’s family on the grounds that ‘it was bin Laden
himself who placed them in harm’s way’, I do not think that is in any sense an
excuse. We must investigate what happened, and take action if this was
execution.
An Afghan man sits in the back of a bus with the body of a
person who was allegedly killed by a US soldier in Panjwai, Kandahar province,
Afghanistan onMarch 11, 2012.- AP
However the manner in which Channel 4 drums up evidence suggests that they
are more concerned with vindictiveness towards their enemies than justice. In
their anxiety to declare that the boy was tortured, they claim that they have
been told this by a Sri Lankan Army officer. However, in the transcript they
show, it appears that, when they asked this officer how the boy had been
treated, he simply responded ‘I got to know at the latter stages that they found
out where Prabhakaran is through his son’.
Then there is a description from a pathologist about how he had been killed,
a description that uses the word ‘likely’ three times. This uncertainty is
compounded in the response to the question Channel 4 posed about torture, having
declared that ‘clearly’ whoever killed him was trying to get information.
The answer is categorical that ‘There is no evidence on the body of physical
torture’. However, the obliging expert then claims that ‘if we can imagine the
situation he was in’, since there were five others ‘who may well have been
killed before he was killed’, and (this is now definite in what we can imagine),
he was shot ‘by someone standing in front of him with the end of the gun within
a few feet of his body, that would be a psychological torture in itself’. In
this extraordinarily tentative world in which the Channel 4 expert lives, the
alleged torture being characterized by a bizarre indefinite article too, this is
enough to claim that President Rajapaksa is guilty. The sequence ends with the
claim that, after several hypothetical steps, ‘the legal difficulties of linking
the top to the bottom are largely eliminated’.
I should add that this video does not seem, at first sight, to contain many
of the flaws of the previous video Channel 4 showed, which was initially dated
wrongly (with no explanation given when we showed that the metadata indicated
something else), with no editing of fragments in the wrong order with the
inclusion of one fragment filmed at a different time and perhaps even a
different place according to the reports the UN commissioned, with no
purportedly dead figure putting down his legs which led one apparently eccentric
expert to declare that is was possible he was drunk or sleeping or playing dead
while others were being shot through the head around him. The video of
Balachandran’s body - not actual killing which was shown in the other video,
which is bizarrely now connected to this through claims of a pattern - does not
seem tampered with, which is why I believe the incident should be investigated.
In the other case, it is obviously the video that should be investigated first,
and for this we or the UN needs to have the original videos Channel 4 showed,
not a copy as happened with the first video, when Channel 4 refused to give what
they showed to us or to the UN.
David Miliband
Osama bin
Laden
Channel 4 claimed to have received the initial video from a body called
Journalists for Democracy, which is the same body that supplied the UN with
another copy of that video, but one that differed in salient particulars that we
had pointed out. And this time round, to strengthen their case against the Sri
Lankan government, it is of course a representative of Journalists for Democracy
who is trotted out. Those who do not know the involvement of this group in
making the film in the first place would naturally be fooled, but it is sad that
governments also refer to Channel 4 approvingly, without bothering to study the
sleight of hand that is used.
Claims that civilians were knowingly targeted
The third case history, as Channel 4 terms the four charges that are made,
revolves around the claim that civilians were ‘knowingly targeted’. No evidence
for this is presented, but instead we have a lot of emotive footage taken
largely from Sri Lankan government footage, and then some generalizations that
do not mention the reasons for the claims made. David Miliband asserts that ‘the
fact that the LTTE were using civilians as human shields which in some cases
they were, is itself a war crime, doesn’t justify the shelling of those sites
and those individuals’. Sam Zarifi claims that ‘The evidence that’s available
right now strongly suggests that war crimes occurred’, while William Shabas,
described as a Human Rights Lawyer, claims that ‘There are strong presumptions,
when these attacks took place, that they were disproportionate, that civilians
may have been or civilian objects like hospitals may have been targeted’. No
evidence is given for the claims or what the lawyer describes, with great
circumspection, as presumptions.
The claims are strengthened by the assertion that the pro-government media
suggested no civilians had died in the offensive. On the contrary, what
government spokesmen were denying was that civilians were targeted. As Shabas
suggests, and as the United States and its allies have manifested time and time
again, collateral damage is inevitable when targeting terrorists who live and
work in the midst of civilians. The question is whether the force used was
proportionate. The Americans always claim that the force was proportionate, by
asserting that all those who were killed were terrorists, even though the poor
Pakistanis and Afghans and others whose relations are killed think otherwise.
But they obviously do not have the technological and other skills the West
commands to identify as positively as the West does who is a terrorist, and to
ensure that that identification is accepted by Western media.
In Sri Lanka, we were faced with the fact that the LTTE deliberately placed
heavy weaponry amongst civilians and in and near ‘civilian objects like
hospitals’. This is clearly stated by those who cannot be said to have been
prejudiced in favour of government in any way. First there is the letter from
Chris du Toit to the Commander of the Security Force Headquarters in the Vanni,
dated January 20th, which was a few days after Convoy 11 went in.
Du Toit wrote then, ‘It was reported to us that artillery and mortar bases
have been established in the general area of our communications hub from where
they deliver fire to your forces’. It must be remembered that the convoy went in
on January 16 and was meant to come out soon afterwards, but stayed on. At the
time we were told that it was because they hoped to persuade the LTTE to let
their staff in the North leave, though it is now insinuated that there was heavy
fighting during that time. In fact fighting seems to have been limited, for in
the four days between January 16 - 20, TamilNet alleged altogether 42 deaths
from what they claimed were artillery barrages, in contrast to the large numbers
alleged afterwards, when two figure and then three figure numbers became the
norm.
Certainly the forces were very anxious for the convoy to leave, precisely
because of what du Toit reports. When however the convoy did leave, part of it
remained behind to continue to try to persuade the LTTE to free local staff, an
exercise that proved fruitless even though we were told every day that success
was imminent, and therefore declared ceasefires, which proved fruitless, except
perhaps to allow the LTTE to redeploy its weapons.
This is what happened on the day we were accused of targeting the
humanitarian supply centre which forms the substance of Channel 4’s first case
history. On that very day the Bishop of Jaffna wrote to government requesting it
to enlarge the Safe Zone, and adding ‘We are also urgently requesting the LTTE
Tigers not to station themselves among the people in the safety zone and fire
their artillery shells and rockets at the Army. This will only increase more and
more the death of civilians thus endangering the safety of the people. I insist
that both parties must observe the Safety zone strictly’.
This was a request that the forces made through the ICRC too, which responded
on February 20, in a letter headed ‘Complaints about LTTE firing from the no
fire zone’, welcoming the demarcation of a new ‘safe zone’ It added however that
‘the ICRC would like to point out that not having been agreed upon by both
parties to the conflict with the aim to shelter the wounded, sick and civilians
from the effects of hostilities or with the aim to demilitarize it, the zone as
such is not specifically protected under International Humanitarian Law’.
This is the crux of the matter, glibly ignored by those who sought political
advantage through speaking up in a manner that would have helped the Tigers.
David Miliband is right to say that ‘Democratic governments are held to higher
standards than terrorist organizations’, though he was quite happy to connive in
the programme of secret renditions and torture that Craig Murray, the British
ambassador to Uzbekhistan who was dismissed for criticizing the excesses of New
Labour, reveals.
But it is also a fact that governments must defend their own citizens, and
they certainly cannot allow their own forces to be mown down like flies, by
refraining from firing on weapons which are targeting them. I cannot therefore
understand Chris du Toit’s request ‘that you inform your respective ground
commanders and artillery commanders not to deliver any artillery, mortar or
small arms fire into the general area of the hub’ since he had just said that
the forces were being fired upon ‘from artillery and mortar bases established in
the general area of the hub’.
The fact that not one single UN worker or member of a family was hurt then,
and indeed - though most had to stay on to the end - none even thereafter,
(except a girl who lost her leg because of a mine, if I remember right, laid of
course by the LTTE) is a tribute to the care exercised by our forces, in the
face of this ruthless use of civilians, and even more prominently the UN
officers who stayed on without proper authorization.
The strange case of Peter Mackay
Perhaps the most telling perversions in the latest Channel 4 film come with
regard to what is termed its first case study. This ‘begins on January 23 when
UN personnel from the last overland food convoy into the war zone became trapped
in the fighting’. This is actually not quite correct, because most of convoy 11
had gone back, but a few people chose to stay behind, contrary to what had been
agreed with government, in order to try, it was claimed, to persuade the LTTE to
allow UN workers who had been in the Vanni to leave.
The account relies heavily on a man called Peter Mackay, expanding on the
names given in previous such descriptions, by the Darusman Panel and by an
Australian called Gordon Weiss, who referred by name only to a man who was known
officially to have been present, Colonel Haroun, who had worked very well with
his Sri Lankan counterparts. The name of Peter Mackay, another Australian, does
not figure in the manifests of UN staff coming back to Vavuniya that are with
the forces. I do not think this was due just to carelessness, and I am sorry
that, though I have requested this, our Ministry of External Affairs has not got
the real story from the UN, whose trust Mackay seems to have betrayed - assuming
they were not aware of what he was up to, in contravention of his supposed job
description.
To be continued
Monday, March 26, 2012
http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/17647-plane-crash-in-2000-due-to-ltte-attack.html
Plane crash in 2000 due to LTTE attack Monday, 26 March 2012 16:55 The police said that the AN-26 aircraft crash, which killed 40 security forces personnel in 2000 in Wilpattu, was due to an LTTE missile attack, although it was initially attributed to a technical failure. They said that the Terrorist Investigations Department (TID) is to re-open the case of the crash after two suspects arrested by the TID had confessed to shooting down the plane which caused the crash. The two suspects are to be produced in the Anuradhapura court soon. The aircraft was chartered by the Air Force to transport troops including soldiers wounded in the fighting. The aircraft crashed within ten minutes of take off after the crew reported engine trouble while flying from Palaly to Anuradhapura. The suspects had admitted to firing the missile using a shoulder mounted ‘manpad’ from a hideout inside the Wilpattu National Park. Among those killed were four crew members and 36 security forces personnel. The plane crashed into the Weerawewa area in Anuradhapura. Police said the two suspects were arrested two weeks ago in Kilinochchi. The capsule from the manpad launcher was recovered by the Army during the last stages of the war. The two spent capsules of the missiles were found with the markings 2000/03/30 and AN26 written on them.
Plane crash in 2000 due to LTTE attack Monday, 26 March 2012 16:55 The police said that the AN-26 aircraft crash, which killed 40 security forces personnel in 2000 in Wilpattu, was due to an LTTE missile attack, although it was initially attributed to a technical failure. They said that the Terrorist Investigations Department (TID) is to re-open the case of the crash after two suspects arrested by the TID had confessed to shooting down the plane which caused the crash. The two suspects are to be produced in the Anuradhapura court soon. The aircraft was chartered by the Air Force to transport troops including soldiers wounded in the fighting. The aircraft crashed within ten minutes of take off after the crew reported engine trouble while flying from Palaly to Anuradhapura. The suspects had admitted to firing the missile using a shoulder mounted ‘manpad’ from a hideout inside the Wilpattu National Park. Among those killed were four crew members and 36 security forces personnel. The plane crashed into the Weerawewa area in Anuradhapura. Police said the two suspects were arrested two weeks ago in Kilinochchi. The capsule from the manpad launcher was recovered by the Army during the last stages of the war. The two spent capsules of the missiles were found with the markings 2000/03/30 and AN26 written on them.
http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca201203/20120326canada_offers_12million_usd_human_smuggling_crackdown.htmMonday, March 26, 2012 - 5.03
GMT
Canada offers 12 million USD for
human smuggling crackdown
Canada is contributing 12 million US
dollars over two years to crack down on human smuggling and illegal migration in
Southeast Asia and other parts of the world.Canadian Prime Minister
Stephen Harper announced the funding during his visit to Thailand.Canada
established a task force in Bangkok, comprised of RCMP officers and other
officials, after MV Sun Sea bearing 492 Tamil asylum seekers arrived off the
shores to British Columbia from Thailand in August 2010."Since the fall
of 2010, intensified cooperation between RCMP and the Royal Thai Police, has
thwarted the activities of human smuggling gangs," the Canadian Prime Minister
said.Ward Elcock, the Canadian Prime Minister's special adviser on human
smuggling said one shipload of Tamils was seized in Indonesia last July that was
bound for Canada.About 7 million USD has been set aside specifically for
training and equipping police throughout the Southeast Asian region, including
2.5 million specifically for Thailand.The Canadian Prime Minister
thanked Thai security officials for "for their energetic pursuit of some of the
world's worst criminals – people who profit from exploiting the miseries and the
aspirations of some of the world's most vulnerable people."
GMT
Canada offers 12 million USD for
human smuggling crackdown
Canada is contributing 12 million US
dollars over two years to crack down on human smuggling and illegal migration in
Southeast Asia and other parts of the world.Canadian Prime Minister
Stephen Harper announced the funding during his visit to Thailand.Canada
established a task force in Bangkok, comprised of RCMP officers and other
officials, after MV Sun Sea bearing 492 Tamil asylum seekers arrived off the
shores to British Columbia from Thailand in August 2010."Since the fall
of 2010, intensified cooperation between RCMP and the Royal Thai Police, has
thwarted the activities of human smuggling gangs," the Canadian Prime Minister
said.Ward Elcock, the Canadian Prime Minister's special adviser on human
smuggling said one shipload of Tamils was seized in Indonesia last July that was
bound for Canada.About 7 million USD has been set aside specifically for
training and equipping police throughout the Southeast Asian region, including
2.5 million specifically for Thailand.The Canadian Prime Minister
thanked Thai security officials for "for their energetic pursuit of some of the
world's worst criminals – people who profit from exploiting the miseries and the
aspirations of some of the world's most vulnerable people."
Sunday, March 25, 2012
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=Dependent_war_hero_at_abimansala'_ties_nuptial_knots_iIn_front_of_commander_2130325_03
Dependent War Hero at 'Abimansala' Ties Nuptial Knots In front of Commander
www.defence.lk" pbshowcaption="true">The saying,
'Love Conquers All' (Omnia Vincit Amor), is a universal factor that can
transgress all the borders, all ethnicities, physical or any other disabilities
or in essence, anything, to state the least.
Human passions are so elusive and 'it is the love that makes the
world go round.' This makes no difference to Lance Corporal Charith Kularuwan
Kulathilleke of 5 Vijayabahu Infantry Regiment (VIR) of the Army too who has
been living at Anuradhapura 'Abimansala', wellness resort for dependent War
Heroes.
The 23-year old soldier, Kulathilleke, highly taken up by
selfless sacrifices of the troops in defence of the country, joined the Army on
25th May 2007 with the blessings of his parents and received his military
training from Puttalam-based Vijayabahu Infantry Training School.
With the escalation of terrorism and fast swelling battlefield
requirements, he was deployed at the Kilaly Forward Defence Line for duties,
together with his fellow-soldiers. Fate however did not serve him the way he
wanted. While he was serving there, Kulathilleke fell victim to an LTTE booby
trap, close to the forward defence line and resulted in the loss of his right
forearm and full vision in both eyes.
Yet, determined Kulathilleke after recovery too wanted to serve
the organization continuously and authorities accordingly confined him to Ragama
Ranaviru Sevana for both rehabilitation and continued service. Nevertheless,
Kulathilleke with some of his friends with similar disability as per medical
advice, used to consult optometrists/eye surgeons at Colombo National Eye
Hospital on a regular basis.
Life continues to remain unpredictable. The girl by the name, Ms
S.G Suvini Sewwandi (19), who accidentally saw this blind War Hero on the public
bus, bound for the Eye Hospital for treatment, turned curious to learn more
about him. Concern, blended with kindness, warmth and magnanimity, grew itself
to be life-binding commitment. She gradually played Cupid. As a result, she
started visiting Ragama Ranaviru Sevana where he was resident at that stage
often and began spending more time with his dependent fianc‚, Lance Corporal
Kulathilleke, though he remains completely blind.
Against all odds, she was firmly resolved to make Kulathilleke's
life more comfortable and prosperous by being the better half to him during the
rest of his life. Their romance no longer remained a secret, though the
protagonist was moved to the state of the art Anuradhapura 'Abimansala' for
rehabilitation, rest and recreation.
After the maiden invitation was presented to the Commander and
the President, Seva Vanitha Army Branch, arrangements got underway. The
red-letter day (March 25) finally dawned. The serene 'Abimansala' wore the garbs
of matrimony as wedding bells began ringing when all the inmates, attired in
their Sunday best, waited and lined up, counting minutes, if not seconds, until
their fellow-inmate, Kulathilleke leaves his signature on the dotted line in
matrimonial knot, together with his bride, Suvini Sewwandi, an exceptional
feminine character of courage and magnanimity in contemporary times. It was a
spectacle unheard and not witnessed by many.
The first-ever wedding ceremony at 'Abimansala' on Sunday (25)
was further dignified by the presence of the 'Abimansala's very founding father,
Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, Commander of the Army, together with Mrs
Manjulika Jayasuriya, President, Seva Vanitha Army Branch whose fund-raising
campaign, 'Brave Hearts', made construction of the 'Abimansala', a roaring
success. Both of them warmly greeted the wedded couple, gave away unforgettable
gestures of gifts and promised construction of a fully-equipped new house for
the couple, close to the bridegroom's hometown, Mihintale, for which funds have
already been allocated, following the patronage given by a leading company. A
host of relatives, friends and well-wishers from both sides eagerly watched
colourful wedding proceedings that closely followed ancient rites and rituals,
including the 'Poruwa' ceremony.
On the sidelines of the main ceremony, the architect of the
unique project, Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, together with Mrs
Jayasuriya went round the entire premises and inquired into various functional
aspects of the project and instructed accordingly. He also did not forget to
speak to almost all 'Abimansala' inmates, resident there and a cross section of
the administrative staff before his exit from the ceremony.
Dependent War Hero at 'Abimansala' Ties Nuptial Knots In front of Commander
www.defence.lk" pbshowcaption="true">The saying,
'Love Conquers All' (Omnia Vincit Amor), is a universal factor that can
transgress all the borders, all ethnicities, physical or any other disabilities
or in essence, anything, to state the least.
Human passions are so elusive and 'it is the love that makes the
world go round.' This makes no difference to Lance Corporal Charith Kularuwan
Kulathilleke of 5 Vijayabahu Infantry Regiment (VIR) of the Army too who has
been living at Anuradhapura 'Abimansala', wellness resort for dependent War
Heroes.
The 23-year old soldier, Kulathilleke, highly taken up by
selfless sacrifices of the troops in defence of the country, joined the Army on
25th May 2007 with the blessings of his parents and received his military
training from Puttalam-based Vijayabahu Infantry Training School.
With the escalation of terrorism and fast swelling battlefield
requirements, he was deployed at the Kilaly Forward Defence Line for duties,
together with his fellow-soldiers. Fate however did not serve him the way he
wanted. While he was serving there, Kulathilleke fell victim to an LTTE booby
trap, close to the forward defence line and resulted in the loss of his right
forearm and full vision in both eyes.
Yet, determined Kulathilleke after recovery too wanted to serve
the organization continuously and authorities accordingly confined him to Ragama
Ranaviru Sevana for both rehabilitation and continued service. Nevertheless,
Kulathilleke with some of his friends with similar disability as per medical
advice, used to consult optometrists/eye surgeons at Colombo National Eye
Hospital on a regular basis.
Life continues to remain unpredictable. The girl by the name, Ms
S.G Suvini Sewwandi (19), who accidentally saw this blind War Hero on the public
bus, bound for the Eye Hospital for treatment, turned curious to learn more
about him. Concern, blended with kindness, warmth and magnanimity, grew itself
to be life-binding commitment. She gradually played Cupid. As a result, she
started visiting Ragama Ranaviru Sevana where he was resident at that stage
often and began spending more time with his dependent fianc‚, Lance Corporal
Kulathilleke, though he remains completely blind.
Against all odds, she was firmly resolved to make Kulathilleke's
life more comfortable and prosperous by being the better half to him during the
rest of his life. Their romance no longer remained a secret, though the
protagonist was moved to the state of the art Anuradhapura 'Abimansala' for
rehabilitation, rest and recreation.
After the maiden invitation was presented to the Commander and
the President, Seva Vanitha Army Branch, arrangements got underway. The
red-letter day (March 25) finally dawned. The serene 'Abimansala' wore the garbs
of matrimony as wedding bells began ringing when all the inmates, attired in
their Sunday best, waited and lined up, counting minutes, if not seconds, until
their fellow-inmate, Kulathilleke leaves his signature on the dotted line in
matrimonial knot, together with his bride, Suvini Sewwandi, an exceptional
feminine character of courage and magnanimity in contemporary times. It was a
spectacle unheard and not witnessed by many.
The first-ever wedding ceremony at 'Abimansala' on Sunday (25)
was further dignified by the presence of the 'Abimansala's very founding father,
Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, Commander of the Army, together with Mrs
Manjulika Jayasuriya, President, Seva Vanitha Army Branch whose fund-raising
campaign, 'Brave Hearts', made construction of the 'Abimansala', a roaring
success. Both of them warmly greeted the wedded couple, gave away unforgettable
gestures of gifts and promised construction of a fully-equipped new house for
the couple, close to the bridegroom's hometown, Mihintale, for which funds have
already been allocated, following the patronage given by a leading company. A
host of relatives, friends and well-wishers from both sides eagerly watched
colourful wedding proceedings that closely followed ancient rites and rituals,
including the 'Poruwa' ceremony.
On the sidelines of the main ceremony, the architect of the
unique project, Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, together with Mrs
Jayasuriya went round the entire premises and inquired into various functional
aspects of the project and instructed accordingly. He also did not forget to
speak to almost all 'Abimansala' inmates, resident there and a cross section of
the administrative staff before his exit from the ceremony.
http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/03/26/news02.asp
US resolution has set a very dangerous precedent - Geneva envoy
* Reopening issues decided upon in the past
is unwarranted
* Sri Lanka needs to move forward to a
pluralistic society
The US sponsored resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) last Thursday poses serious threats and dangerous precedents
affecting all countries, particularly to those in the developing world, by
seeking to make the Council take on the character of a tribunal that will exceed
its mandate, states Sri Lankan ambassador in Geneva Tamara Kunanayakam.
In a note prepared for the African group, the ambassador states that the US
resolution in seeking to reopen issues decided upon in the past is unwarranted
and presents a clear risk of developing countries, in particular, being targeted
for collateral reasons.
It also undermines the cardinal principle and well entrenched rule of
international law that demands the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Suspicion
and criticism of domestic remedies undermines also the judicial process in
democratic countries, and introduces a political dimension that attacks the
independence of the judiciary, she states.
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP has in the ambassador’s note also dealt with the
implications of the resolution for the principles on which the United Nations
was founded and which the Council was intended to uphold.
It makes clear the legal and procedural implications of the US resolution for
all sovereign states, not just Sri Lanka, he said.
Text of the briefing note:
* This resolution will lead to the Council for the first time addressing past
issues, and thus taking on the character of a tribunal that will exceed its
mandate.
*This undermines a decision taken by the Council in 2009, and is doubly
intrusive because there has only been change for the better since that decision.
* The Council mandate provides for resolutions to address specific country
issues through the UPR or through special sessions in cases of emergency. The
alternative is under Item 4, when circumstances have arisen that require special
attention, because there are current instances of gross and systematic
violations.
*Reopening issues decided upon in the past is unwarranted and presents a
clear risk of developing countries, in particular, being targeted for collateral
reasons.
*The resolution undermines the cardinal principle and well entrenched rule of
international law that demands the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Suspicion
and criticism of domestic remedies undermines also the judicial process in
democratic countries, and introduces a political dimension that attacks the
independence of the judiciary.
* Through this resolution, the HRC is asked to reach conclusions on a report
[that of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)], which has not
been placed before this Council for deliberation. This precedent will encourage
the Council to take cognizance of any writing in any document placed before the
Council.
* The resolution judges the intentions of an elected government, and proposes
actions that arise from unwarranted hypotheses. These hypotheses are of a piece
with the condign criticism from countries advancing this resolution when the
LLRC was appointed.
*The effort to impose technical assistance and advice from the office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights is contrary to the principle that these
should be based on consent.
*The conflation of these with special procedures and the requirement of a
sovereign government to mandatorily accept such advice is totally contrary to
the principle of sovereignty, and has no precedent.
*The lack of specificity as to the budgetary arrangements envisaged by the
draft resolution gives rise to potentially serious concerns about the
transparency and accountability of funding sources of OHCHR and special
procedures in fulfilling the requirements of the resolution.
If recourse is had to largely opaque funding sources, developing countries
must register their concern about donor driven programmes not subject to
scrutiny and monitoring by any inter-governmental body.
* The resolution subverts the principle of cooperation that has been
institutionalised through the UPR procedure. The system of discussion and debate
that the UPR has nourished will be undermined by this innovation. In particular,
given the pledges made by Sri Lanka at the first UPR cycle, which will be
reviewed in a few months, it is gratuitously inappropriate to introduce a fresh
mechanism now which anticipates the evaluation due in a few months
*The justifications advanced for this resolution, which refer to intervention
where states have failed, opens the floodgates for subjective assessments in a
context of increasingly judgmental indices that are celebrated in the popular
media with no reference to objective criteria or the funding sources of such
information.
*Whilst it is claimed that this resolution will promote reconciliation, it
will only contribute to polarisation in a society that has begun to come
together through the various reconciliation initiatives that have commenced.
* Sri Lanka needs to move forward to a pluralistic society, in which all
citizens can live together in harmony, equality, dignity, justice, self-respect
and inter-dependent prosperity.
In purporting to deal with reconciliation in a manner that satisfies external
perspectives rather than those of Sri Lankan citizens, this resolution will only
benefit disruptive forces and prevent us from achieving the goals we share.
US resolution has set a very dangerous precedent - Geneva envoy
* Reopening issues decided upon in the past
is unwarranted
* Sri Lanka needs to move forward to a
pluralistic society
The US sponsored resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) last Thursday poses serious threats and dangerous precedents
affecting all countries, particularly to those in the developing world, by
seeking to make the Council take on the character of a tribunal that will exceed
its mandate, states Sri Lankan ambassador in Geneva Tamara Kunanayakam.
In a note prepared for the African group, the ambassador states that the US
resolution in seeking to reopen issues decided upon in the past is unwarranted
and presents a clear risk of developing countries, in particular, being targeted
for collateral reasons.
It also undermines the cardinal principle and well entrenched rule of
international law that demands the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Suspicion
and criticism of domestic remedies undermines also the judicial process in
democratic countries, and introduces a political dimension that attacks the
independence of the judiciary, she states.
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP has in the ambassador’s note also dealt with the
implications of the resolution for the principles on which the United Nations
was founded and which the Council was intended to uphold.
It makes clear the legal and procedural implications of the US resolution for
all sovereign states, not just Sri Lanka, he said.
Text of the briefing note:
* This resolution will lead to the Council for the first time addressing past
issues, and thus taking on the character of a tribunal that will exceed its
mandate.
*This undermines a decision taken by the Council in 2009, and is doubly
intrusive because there has only been change for the better since that decision.
* The Council mandate provides for resolutions to address specific country
issues through the UPR or through special sessions in cases of emergency. The
alternative is under Item 4, when circumstances have arisen that require special
attention, because there are current instances of gross and systematic
violations.
*Reopening issues decided upon in the past is unwarranted and presents a
clear risk of developing countries, in particular, being targeted for collateral
reasons.
*The resolution undermines the cardinal principle and well entrenched rule of
international law that demands the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Suspicion
and criticism of domestic remedies undermines also the judicial process in
democratic countries, and introduces a political dimension that attacks the
independence of the judiciary.
* Through this resolution, the HRC is asked to reach conclusions on a report
[that of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)], which has not
been placed before this Council for deliberation. This precedent will encourage
the Council to take cognizance of any writing in any document placed before the
Council.
* The resolution judges the intentions of an elected government, and proposes
actions that arise from unwarranted hypotheses. These hypotheses are of a piece
with the condign criticism from countries advancing this resolution when the
LLRC was appointed.
*The effort to impose technical assistance and advice from the office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights is contrary to the principle that these
should be based on consent.
*The conflation of these with special procedures and the requirement of a
sovereign government to mandatorily accept such advice is totally contrary to
the principle of sovereignty, and has no precedent.
*The lack of specificity as to the budgetary arrangements envisaged by the
draft resolution gives rise to potentially serious concerns about the
transparency and accountability of funding sources of OHCHR and special
procedures in fulfilling the requirements of the resolution.
If recourse is had to largely opaque funding sources, developing countries
must register their concern about donor driven programmes not subject to
scrutiny and monitoring by any inter-governmental body.
* The resolution subverts the principle of cooperation that has been
institutionalised through the UPR procedure. The system of discussion and debate
that the UPR has nourished will be undermined by this innovation. In particular,
given the pledges made by Sri Lanka at the first UPR cycle, which will be
reviewed in a few months, it is gratuitously inappropriate to introduce a fresh
mechanism now which anticipates the evaluation due in a few months
*The justifications advanced for this resolution, which refer to intervention
where states have failed, opens the floodgates for subjective assessments in a
context of increasingly judgmental indices that are celebrated in the popular
media with no reference to objective criteria or the funding sources of such
information.
*Whilst it is claimed that this resolution will promote reconciliation, it
will only contribute to polarisation in a society that has begun to come
together through the various reconciliation initiatives that have commenced.
* Sri Lanka needs to move forward to a pluralistic society, in which all
citizens can live together in harmony, equality, dignity, justice, self-respect
and inter-dependent prosperity.
In purporting to deal with reconciliation in a manner that satisfies external
perspectives rather than those of Sri Lankan citizens, this resolution will only
benefit disruptive forces and prevent us from achieving the goals we share.
http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/03/26/news01.asp
Diplomatic triumph for SL say ministers
Rasika Somarathna, Priyanka Kurugala and Ridma Dissanayake
* ‘Resolution failed to acknowledge country’s
victories’
* ‘Some voted in favour due to extreme
pressure from West’
Senior ministers yesterday hailed the support Sri Lanka received from many
quarters in Geneva as a diplomatic success as this had materialised despite
reports of intense pressure being brought upon many voting members by some
powerful countries. The resolution was passed by the United Nations Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) on Thursday with 24 members out of 47 voting in favour.
The ministers said that if India had voted against or even abstained from
voting, the outcome of the final result may have been different.
Chief Government Whip and Water Supply and Drainage Minister Dinesh
Gunewardene said that the decision to vote in favour by some may have been due
to political agendas far removed from the subject matter of the resolution.
He also questioned whether the sponsors of the resolution had considered Sri
Lanka’s multi - faceted progress in the post – conflict era when coming up with
it.
He noted that the resolution had failed to acknowledge the country’s
victories in development, restoration of democracy, promotion and protection of
human rights etc which did not exist when the LTTE was unleashing its terror.
Gunewardene said that with 15 countries voting with Sri Lanka, and eight
abstaining, the final result was that 23 countries, out of a total of 47 members
of the Council, did not support the resolution, while 24 supported it.
“The margin was as narrow. India’s vote may have tilted the balance,” he
said.
The minister said that the government in the future would take steps to
further strengthen its friendly ties with the international community and both
short and long term plans would be implemented towards this end.
Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka said that despite the Sri
Lankan delegation to Geneva making a valiant bid even at the last moment to
change the minds of the uncommitted delegates to consider Sri Lanka’s case in a
favourable light, some had apparently voted in favour due to extreme pressure
brought upon them by the US and some Western countries using their economic
clout.
He said that the decision taken by some countries to vote against the
resolution despite these pressure was highly appreciated.
The minister said that there were reports that if India had at least
abstained from voting, some countries who voted in favour too may have followed
suit.
Ranawaka said that Sri Lanka should look to further strengthen its
international relations in the future.
Deputy Economic Development Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardene said that the
recent voting as regard the US – sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka may have been
determined not by the merits of a particular issue but by strategic alliances
and domestic political issues in other countries which have nothing to do with
the subject matter.
He said that despite a systematic and organised campaign aimed at distorting
and misinforming the Council about the Sri Lankan situation, many international
partners had stood by the country.
Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities Minister
Wimal Weerawansa said that Sri Lanka’s narrow defeat in Geneva may please the
LTTE proxies but not the people of the country.
He said that such efforts would only provide oxygen to the militarily
vanquished LTTE.
Diplomatic triumph for SL say ministers
Rasika Somarathna, Priyanka Kurugala and Ridma Dissanayake
* ‘Resolution failed to acknowledge country’s
victories’
* ‘Some voted in favour due to extreme
pressure from West’
Senior ministers yesterday hailed the support Sri Lanka received from many
quarters in Geneva as a diplomatic success as this had materialised despite
reports of intense pressure being brought upon many voting members by some
powerful countries. The resolution was passed by the United Nations Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) on Thursday with 24 members out of 47 voting in favour.
The ministers said that if India had voted against or even abstained from
voting, the outcome of the final result may have been different.
Chief Government Whip and Water Supply and Drainage Minister Dinesh
Gunewardene said that the decision to vote in favour by some may have been due
to political agendas far removed from the subject matter of the resolution.
He also questioned whether the sponsors of the resolution had considered Sri
Lanka’s multi - faceted progress in the post – conflict era when coming up with
it.
He noted that the resolution had failed to acknowledge the country’s
victories in development, restoration of democracy, promotion and protection of
human rights etc which did not exist when the LTTE was unleashing its terror.
Gunewardene said that with 15 countries voting with Sri Lanka, and eight
abstaining, the final result was that 23 countries, out of a total of 47 members
of the Council, did not support the resolution, while 24 supported it.
“The margin was as narrow. India’s vote may have tilted the balance,” he
said.
The minister said that the government in the future would take steps to
further strengthen its friendly ties with the international community and both
short and long term plans would be implemented towards this end.
Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka said that despite the Sri
Lankan delegation to Geneva making a valiant bid even at the last moment to
change the minds of the uncommitted delegates to consider Sri Lanka’s case in a
favourable light, some had apparently voted in favour due to extreme pressure
brought upon them by the US and some Western countries using their economic
clout.
He said that the decision taken by some countries to vote against the
resolution despite these pressure was highly appreciated.
The minister said that there were reports that if India had at least
abstained from voting, some countries who voted in favour too may have followed
suit.
Ranawaka said that Sri Lanka should look to further strengthen its
international relations in the future.
Deputy Economic Development Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardene said that the
recent voting as regard the US – sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka may have been
determined not by the merits of a particular issue but by strategic alliances
and domestic political issues in other countries which have nothing to do with
the subject matter.
He said that despite a systematic and organised campaign aimed at distorting
and misinforming the Council about the Sri Lankan situation, many international
partners had stood by the country.
Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities Minister
Wimal Weerawansa said that Sri Lanka’s narrow defeat in Geneva may please the
LTTE proxies but not the people of the country.
He said that such efforts would only provide oxygen to the militarily
vanquished LTTE.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/03/25/fea04.asp
World’s tide in favour of Sri Lanka
by Manjula FERNANDO
Resolution on Promoting
Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka
The Council notes with concern
that the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri
Lanka does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of
international law and calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the
constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission. And to take all additional steps to fulfil its
relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent
actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri
Lankans. Requests the Government of Sri Lanka to present, as expeditiously as
possible, a comprehensive action plan detailing the steps that the Government
has taken and will take to implement the recommendations made in the
Commission’s report. And also to address alleged violations of international
law. And encourages the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in
consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka,
advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned
steps.
Although US succeeded in an aggressive manipulative campaign to secure a
majority vote to move a resolution against Sri Lanka at the 19th sessions of the
UN Human Rights Council last week, Sri Lanka was commended by the majority of
the international community over its ongoing reconciliation and development
efforts.
Even the countries which voted in favour to defeat Sri Lanka like Uruguay and
those who abstained from voting when resolution A/HRC/19/L.2/Rev1 on “promoting
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka” was taken up, recognised and
commended the domestic initiatives to achieve reconciliation and development
which leaves us with a pertinent question ‘Then what warranted the US action?’
India, which is bracing to face a challenging Union Budget in the days ahead,
was compelled to vote with US due to domestic political compulsions but in the
speech that preceded their ‘reluctant’ vote, the Indian representative Dilip
Sinha warned against any action without the concurrence of the Sri Lankan
government. He said “the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection
of human rights rested with States themselves”, thus, “the Council resolutions
should fully respect the sovereign rights of States and contribute to Sri
Lanka’s own efforts in this regard”.
Although the US and the EU criticised the LLRC for failing to address all
accountability issues identified in the Darusman report, the Indian
representative went on to say, in a comparatively long statement of explanation
after the vote, that ‘India welcomed the recommendations of the LLRC report and
we believe that there is indeed a window of opportunity to forge a consensual
way forward towards reconciliation’.
He stressed that India subscribed to the general message of the resolution,
‘but any assistance of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
should be in consultation with and concurrence of the Sri Lankan Government’.
Underlining the importance of the talks with the TNA for a political
settlement and the need for the Government to assume a leading role in this
respect, Sinha said, “A democratic country like Sri Lanka has to be provided
time and space to achieve the objectives of reconciliation and peace.”
Cuba which assumed a leading role to defend Sri Lanka’s interests, sought to
postpone the resolution immediately after it was introduced by the US
representative Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, on grounds that it needed to
determine if this action would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the
work of the Council. Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, the Cuban representative making a
lengthy speech that lasted for over 15 minutes asked the co-sponsors whether it
would not be possible to delay action on the resolution until the September
session. He read a text deploring country resolutions, agreed on by 14 member
states.
Noting that it had been three years since Sri Lanka ended its conflict, he
said “Three years ago, President Obama said he would close the Guantanamo Bay
detention centre but that had not been done.
It would seem that this could be an arena for possible confrontation.”
Responding to Cuba, the US said the resolution was a ‘straightforward
declarative resolution that asked Sri Lanka to take action on the LLRC report’.
It rejected the Cuban proposal and said the members without trying to stall the
process must either vote it up or down.
Cuba speaking further said the resolution sets a negative precedent of
singling out developing nations and given that Sri Lanka cooperated with High
Commissioner and special procedures, this action was unjustified and acted
contrary to the principal of non-intervention.
The Representative of Belgium speaking on behalf of the EU
said, EU fully supported this initiative. Disregarding concerns raised by the
Cuban representative of human rights violations committed by the US, he said
‘Genuine reconciliation among all groups and communities in Sri Lanka was
essential and required justice and accountability for past events’.
China which was one of the strong critics of the US resolution making a
general statement before the vote, called on all member states to shoot down the
US move. The Chinese representative said the resolution submitted by the United
States was a ‘product of the politicisation of human rights’.
Chinese representative Liu Zhenmin said ‘Sri Lanka’s reconciliation efforts
was beyond the mandate of the HRC, the draft resolution interfered in the
internal affairs and violated the principals of the UN’.
Representative for the Russian Federation Roman Kashaev said his country was
firm on its policy that attempts to dictate to a sovereign state how policy
should be carried out was unacceptable.
He said outside forces should not interfere with the national reconciliation
attempts by the Sri Lankan Government. Kashaev said “The international community
should not make hasty and ill-founded judgements,” encouraging other states to
vote against this resolution.
Many countries who supported Sri Lanka were explicit about the motives of the
US and the co-sponsors of the resolution and that the objectives of this move
went beyond the mandate of the HRC.
The Philippine representative Therese Lepatan said her
country objected to the attempts by certain countries to introduce ‘a trigger
mechanism in the Council,’ adding that it was against the norms of the Council
to turn technical assistance into a form of political pressure to influence
Governments. She said, “This resolution was a reincarnation of the trigger
mechanism and it attempted to turn international cooperation into a form of
political pressure”. Thus “the Philippines would vote against the resolution.“
Uganda which was another country that firmly stood behind Sri Lanka commended
the government for its speedy publication of the LLRC report and government’s
engagement with the international community.
Thailand and Indonesia expressed that Sri Lanka has so far shown willingness
to cooperate with the international community as well as the HRC and a
resolution was unwarranted. They were of the view the home grown process needs
to be given priority thus this move was ill timed.
Indonesia observed that the co-sponsor had failed to respond in a
constructive manner to the national reconciliation process.
Bangladesh despite the stance taken by India not to support Sri Lanka, voted
in favour of Sri Lanka, upholding the right of Sri Lanka to pursue its domestic
process of reconciliation.
“Sri Lanka had provided significant leadership in countering international
terrorism and required time and space to heal from the long lasting effects of
terrorism,” the Bangladeshi representative said in explanation of her country’s
stance.
It further observed that ‘country specific resolutions make little impact if
the country concerned was not on board.’ Maldives, another ally of Sri Lanka
said it has also been a victim of conflict and had been affected by the conflict
of its close neighbour Sri Lanka and hence, understood the trauma, the violence
that has caused the people of the country.
“In order to rebuild, accountability for violations of human rights committed
by all sides in the war and redress for victims must be ensured and it takes
time,” Maldivian representative said adding that this was not the appropriate
moment to bring in a resolution of this nature.
Ecuador speaking on behalf of their decision to support
Sri Lanka said the crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq should be investigated first
before Sri Lanka is put under the microscope.
It upheld the positions taken by the others that Human Rights Council should
not take a ‘biased approach’ in dealing with accountability issues.
Kyrgyzstan, a country which abstained from voting speaking before the vote,
said the delegation of Kyrgyzstan would abstain as it was of the view that Sri
Lanka did not have enough time to review the recommendations of the LLRC.
Condemning interference in internal affairs, it said action at the international
level would only contribute to destabilise the situation in Sri Lanka.
Angola said it has decided to abstain because the guiding principles of the
Council has not been respected in bringing in this resolution and it did not
encourage and help the people of Sri Lanka to pursue national reconciliation.
Its representative said Angola had gone through a complex and difficult process
of national reconciliation itself and therefore knew the results could not be
achieved on mere documentation but only at the grass roots level.
Even Uruguay which voted in favour of the resolution appreciated the efforts
of Sri Lanka, including the priorities for human rights laid out in the Action
Plan which has been formulated by the Government.
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote said Mexico would vote in
favour of the draft resolution because the text was balanced, fair and
constructive.
Nigeria said it decided to vote for the resolution, not to censure Sri Lanka
but to encourage the process of reconciliation in the country.
World’s tide in favour of Sri Lanka
by Manjula FERNANDO
Resolution on Promoting
Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka
The Council notes with concern
that the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri
Lanka does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of
international law and calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the
constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission. And to take all additional steps to fulfil its
relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent
actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri
Lankans. Requests the Government of Sri Lanka to present, as expeditiously as
possible, a comprehensive action plan detailing the steps that the Government
has taken and will take to implement the recommendations made in the
Commission’s report. And also to address alleged violations of international
law. And encourages the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in
consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka,
advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned
steps.
Although US succeeded in an aggressive manipulative campaign to secure a
majority vote to move a resolution against Sri Lanka at the 19th sessions of the
UN Human Rights Council last week, Sri Lanka was commended by the majority of
the international community over its ongoing reconciliation and development
efforts.
Even the countries which voted in favour to defeat Sri Lanka like Uruguay and
those who abstained from voting when resolution A/HRC/19/L.2/Rev1 on “promoting
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka” was taken up, recognised and
commended the domestic initiatives to achieve reconciliation and development
which leaves us with a pertinent question ‘Then what warranted the US action?’
India, which is bracing to face a challenging Union Budget in the days ahead,
was compelled to vote with US due to domestic political compulsions but in the
speech that preceded their ‘reluctant’ vote, the Indian representative Dilip
Sinha warned against any action without the concurrence of the Sri Lankan
government. He said “the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection
of human rights rested with States themselves”, thus, “the Council resolutions
should fully respect the sovereign rights of States and contribute to Sri
Lanka’s own efforts in this regard”.
Although the US and the EU criticised the LLRC for failing to address all
accountability issues identified in the Darusman report, the Indian
representative went on to say, in a comparatively long statement of explanation
after the vote, that ‘India welcomed the recommendations of the LLRC report and
we believe that there is indeed a window of opportunity to forge a consensual
way forward towards reconciliation’.
He stressed that India subscribed to the general message of the resolution,
‘but any assistance of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
should be in consultation with and concurrence of the Sri Lankan Government’.
Underlining the importance of the talks with the TNA for a political
settlement and the need for the Government to assume a leading role in this
respect, Sinha said, “A democratic country like Sri Lanka has to be provided
time and space to achieve the objectives of reconciliation and peace.”
Cuba which assumed a leading role to defend Sri Lanka’s interests, sought to
postpone the resolution immediately after it was introduced by the US
representative Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, on grounds that it needed to
determine if this action would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the
work of the Council. Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, the Cuban representative making a
lengthy speech that lasted for over 15 minutes asked the co-sponsors whether it
would not be possible to delay action on the resolution until the September
session. He read a text deploring country resolutions, agreed on by 14 member
states.
Noting that it had been three years since Sri Lanka ended its conflict, he
said “Three years ago, President Obama said he would close the Guantanamo Bay
detention centre but that had not been done.
It would seem that this could be an arena for possible confrontation.”
Responding to Cuba, the US said the resolution was a ‘straightforward
declarative resolution that asked Sri Lanka to take action on the LLRC report’.
It rejected the Cuban proposal and said the members without trying to stall the
process must either vote it up or down.
Cuba speaking further said the resolution sets a negative precedent of
singling out developing nations and given that Sri Lanka cooperated with High
Commissioner and special procedures, this action was unjustified and acted
contrary to the principal of non-intervention.
The Representative of Belgium speaking on behalf of the EU
said, EU fully supported this initiative. Disregarding concerns raised by the
Cuban representative of human rights violations committed by the US, he said
‘Genuine reconciliation among all groups and communities in Sri Lanka was
essential and required justice and accountability for past events’.
China which was one of the strong critics of the US resolution making a
general statement before the vote, called on all member states to shoot down the
US move. The Chinese representative said the resolution submitted by the United
States was a ‘product of the politicisation of human rights’.
Chinese representative Liu Zhenmin said ‘Sri Lanka’s reconciliation efforts
was beyond the mandate of the HRC, the draft resolution interfered in the
internal affairs and violated the principals of the UN’.
Representative for the Russian Federation Roman Kashaev said his country was
firm on its policy that attempts to dictate to a sovereign state how policy
should be carried out was unacceptable.
He said outside forces should not interfere with the national reconciliation
attempts by the Sri Lankan Government. Kashaev said “The international community
should not make hasty and ill-founded judgements,” encouraging other states to
vote against this resolution.
Many countries who supported Sri Lanka were explicit about the motives of the
US and the co-sponsors of the resolution and that the objectives of this move
went beyond the mandate of the HRC.
The Philippine representative Therese Lepatan said her
country objected to the attempts by certain countries to introduce ‘a trigger
mechanism in the Council,’ adding that it was against the norms of the Council
to turn technical assistance into a form of political pressure to influence
Governments. She said, “This resolution was a reincarnation of the trigger
mechanism and it attempted to turn international cooperation into a form of
political pressure”. Thus “the Philippines would vote against the resolution.“
Uganda which was another country that firmly stood behind Sri Lanka commended
the government for its speedy publication of the LLRC report and government’s
engagement with the international community.
Thailand and Indonesia expressed that Sri Lanka has so far shown willingness
to cooperate with the international community as well as the HRC and a
resolution was unwarranted. They were of the view the home grown process needs
to be given priority thus this move was ill timed.
Indonesia observed that the co-sponsor had failed to respond in a
constructive manner to the national reconciliation process.
Bangladesh despite the stance taken by India not to support Sri Lanka, voted
in favour of Sri Lanka, upholding the right of Sri Lanka to pursue its domestic
process of reconciliation.
“Sri Lanka had provided significant leadership in countering international
terrorism and required time and space to heal from the long lasting effects of
terrorism,” the Bangladeshi representative said in explanation of her country’s
stance.
It further observed that ‘country specific resolutions make little impact if
the country concerned was not on board.’ Maldives, another ally of Sri Lanka
said it has also been a victim of conflict and had been affected by the conflict
of its close neighbour Sri Lanka and hence, understood the trauma, the violence
that has caused the people of the country.
“In order to rebuild, accountability for violations of human rights committed
by all sides in the war and redress for victims must be ensured and it takes
time,” Maldivian representative said adding that this was not the appropriate
moment to bring in a resolution of this nature.
Ecuador speaking on behalf of their decision to support
Sri Lanka said the crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq should be investigated first
before Sri Lanka is put under the microscope.
It upheld the positions taken by the others that Human Rights Council should
not take a ‘biased approach’ in dealing with accountability issues.
Kyrgyzstan, a country which abstained from voting speaking before the vote,
said the delegation of Kyrgyzstan would abstain as it was of the view that Sri
Lanka did not have enough time to review the recommendations of the LLRC.
Condemning interference in internal affairs, it said action at the international
level would only contribute to destabilise the situation in Sri Lanka.
Angola said it has decided to abstain because the guiding principles of the
Council has not been respected in bringing in this resolution and it did not
encourage and help the people of Sri Lanka to pursue national reconciliation.
Its representative said Angola had gone through a complex and difficult process
of national reconciliation itself and therefore knew the results could not be
achieved on mere documentation but only at the grass roots level.
Even Uruguay which voted in favour of the resolution appreciated the efforts
of Sri Lanka, including the priorities for human rights laid out in the Action
Plan which has been formulated by the Government.
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote said Mexico would vote in
favour of the draft resolution because the text was balanced, fair and
constructive.
Nigeria said it decided to vote for the resolution, not to censure Sri Lanka
but to encourage the process of reconciliation in the country.
http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca201203/20120324us_resolution_has_set_a_very_dangerous.htm
US resolution has set a very
dangerous precedent – Geneva Envoy
The US sponsored resolution adopted the UNHRC last Thursday poses serious
threats and dangerous precedents affecting all countries, particularly to those
in the developing world, by seeking to make the Council take on the character of
a tribunal that will exceed its mandate, states Sri Lankan Ambassador in Geneva
Tamara Kunanayakam.
In a note prepared by for the African group, the Ambassador states that the
US Resolution in seeking to reopen issues decided upon in the past is
unwarranted and presents a clear risk of developing countries, in particular,
being targeted for collateral reasons.
It also undermines the cardinal principle and well entrenched rule of
international law that demands the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Suspicion
and criticism of domestic remedies undermines also the judicial process in
democratic countries, and introduces a political dimension that attacks the
independence of the judiciary, she states.
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP has the Ambassador’s note also dealt with the
implications of the resolution for the principles on which the United Nations
was founded and which the Council was intended to uphold. It makes clear the
legal and procedural implications of the US resolution for all sovereign States,
not just Sri Lank, he said.
Here is the text of the Briefing Note:
1) This Resolution will lead to the Council for the first time
addressing past issues, and thus taking on the character of a tribunal that will
exceed its mandate.
2) This undermines a decision taken by the Council in 2009, and is
doubly intrusive because there has only been change for the better since that
decision.
3) The Council mandate provides for resolutions to address specific
country issues through the UPR or through special sessions in cases of
emergency. The alternative is under Item 4, when circumstances have arisen that
require special attention, because there are current instances of gross and
systematic violations.
4) Reopening issues decided upon in the past is unwarranted and
presents a clear risk of developing countries, in particular, being targeted for
collateral reasons.
5) The resolution undermines the cardinal principle and well
entrenched rule of international law that demands the exhaustion of domestic
remedies. Suspicion and criticism of domestic remedies undermines also the
judicial process in democratic countries, and introduces a political dimension
that attacks the independence of the judiciary.6) Through this
Resolution, the HRC is asked to reach conclusions on a report [that of the
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)], which has not been placed
before this Council for deliberation. This precedent will encourage the Council
to take cognizance of any writing in any document placed before the Council.
7) The resolution judges the intentions of an elected government, and
proposes actions that arise from unwarranted hypotheses. These hypotheses are of
a piece with the condign criticism from countries advancing this resolution when
the LLRC was appointed.
8) The effort to impose technical assistance and advice from the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is contrary to the principle
that these should be based on consent.
9) The conflation of these with Special Procedures and the requirement
of a sovereign government to mandatorily accept such advice is totally contrary
to the principle of sovereignty, and has no precedent.
10) The lack of specificity as to the budgetary arrangements envisaged
by the draft Resolution gives rise to potentially serious concerns about the
transparency and accountability of funding sources of OHCHR and Special
Procedures in fulfilling the requirements of the resolution. If recourse is had
to largely opaque funding sources, developing countries must register their
concern about donor driven programmes not subject to scrutiny and monitoring by
any inter-governmental body.
11) The resolution subverts the principle of cooperation that has been
institutionalized through the UPR procedure. The system of discussion and debate
that the UPR has nourished will be undermined by this innovation. In particular,
given the pledges made by Sri Lanka at the first UPR cycle, which will be
reviewed in a few months, it is gratuitously inappropriate to introduce a fresh
mechanism now which anticipates the evaluation due in a few months
12) The justifications advanced for this resolution, which refer to
intervention where States have failed, opens the floodgates for subjective
assessments in a context of increasingly judgmental indices that are celebrated
in the popular media with no reference to objective criteria or the funding
sources of such information.
13) Whilst it is claimed that this resolution will promote
reconciliation, it will only contribute to polarization in a society that has
begun to come together through the various reconciliation initiatives that have
commenced.
14) Sri Lanka needs to move forward to a pluralistic society, in which
all citizens can live together in harmony, equality, dignity, justice,
self-respect and inter-dependent prosperity. In purporting to deal with
reconciliation in a manner that satisfies external perspectives rather than
those of Sri Lankan citizens, this resolution will only benefit disruptive
forces and prevent us from achieving the goals we share.
US resolution has set a very
dangerous precedent – Geneva Envoy
The US sponsored resolution adopted the UNHRC last Thursday poses serious
threats and dangerous precedents affecting all countries, particularly to those
in the developing world, by seeking to make the Council take on the character of
a tribunal that will exceed its mandate, states Sri Lankan Ambassador in Geneva
Tamara Kunanayakam.
In a note prepared by for the African group, the Ambassador states that the
US Resolution in seeking to reopen issues decided upon in the past is
unwarranted and presents a clear risk of developing countries, in particular,
being targeted for collateral reasons.
It also undermines the cardinal principle and well entrenched rule of
international law that demands the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Suspicion
and criticism of domestic remedies undermines also the judicial process in
democratic countries, and introduces a political dimension that attacks the
independence of the judiciary, she states.
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP has the Ambassador’s note also dealt with the
implications of the resolution for the principles on which the United Nations
was founded and which the Council was intended to uphold. It makes clear the
legal and procedural implications of the US resolution for all sovereign States,
not just Sri Lank, he said.
Here is the text of the Briefing Note:
1) This Resolution will lead to the Council for the first time
addressing past issues, and thus taking on the character of a tribunal that will
exceed its mandate.
2) This undermines a decision taken by the Council in 2009, and is
doubly intrusive because there has only been change for the better since that
decision.
3) The Council mandate provides for resolutions to address specific
country issues through the UPR or through special sessions in cases of
emergency. The alternative is under Item 4, when circumstances have arisen that
require special attention, because there are current instances of gross and
systematic violations.
4) Reopening issues decided upon in the past is unwarranted and
presents a clear risk of developing countries, in particular, being targeted for
collateral reasons.
5) The resolution undermines the cardinal principle and well
entrenched rule of international law that demands the exhaustion of domestic
remedies. Suspicion and criticism of domestic remedies undermines also the
judicial process in democratic countries, and introduces a political dimension
that attacks the independence of the judiciary.6) Through this
Resolution, the HRC is asked to reach conclusions on a report [that of the
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)], which has not been placed
before this Council for deliberation. This precedent will encourage the Council
to take cognizance of any writing in any document placed before the Council.
7) The resolution judges the intentions of an elected government, and
proposes actions that arise from unwarranted hypotheses. These hypotheses are of
a piece with the condign criticism from countries advancing this resolution when
the LLRC was appointed.
8) The effort to impose technical assistance and advice from the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is contrary to the principle
that these should be based on consent.
9) The conflation of these with Special Procedures and the requirement
of a sovereign government to mandatorily accept such advice is totally contrary
to the principle of sovereignty, and has no precedent.
10) The lack of specificity as to the budgetary arrangements envisaged
by the draft Resolution gives rise to potentially serious concerns about the
transparency and accountability of funding sources of OHCHR and Special
Procedures in fulfilling the requirements of the resolution. If recourse is had
to largely opaque funding sources, developing countries must register their
concern about donor driven programmes not subject to scrutiny and monitoring by
any inter-governmental body.
11) The resolution subverts the principle of cooperation that has been
institutionalized through the UPR procedure. The system of discussion and debate
that the UPR has nourished will be undermined by this innovation. In particular,
given the pledges made by Sri Lanka at the first UPR cycle, which will be
reviewed in a few months, it is gratuitously inappropriate to introduce a fresh
mechanism now which anticipates the evaluation due in a few months
12) The justifications advanced for this resolution, which refer to
intervention where States have failed, opens the floodgates for subjective
assessments in a context of increasingly judgmental indices that are celebrated
in the popular media with no reference to objective criteria or the funding
sources of such information.
13) Whilst it is claimed that this resolution will promote
reconciliation, it will only contribute to polarization in a society that has
begun to come together through the various reconciliation initiatives that have
commenced.
14) Sri Lanka needs to move forward to a pluralistic society, in which
all citizens can live together in harmony, equality, dignity, justice,
self-respect and inter-dependent prosperity. In purporting to deal with
reconciliation in a manner that satisfies external perspectives rather than
those of Sri Lankan citizens, this resolution will only benefit disruptive
forces and prevent us from achieving the goals we share.
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=lttes_money_talks_again_20120315_07
LTTE's money talks again
Channel4 has come up with another disgusting piece of journalism
aimed at tarnishing Sri Lanka's reputation. We deny outright the wild
allegations contained therein.
The programme is yet another example of western media arrogance
in dealing with or claiming to report on the emergent and developing world. Sri
Lanka may be in focus at the moment, but it will be another developing world
country in the not too distant future.
The programme represents nothing more than the self-indulgent
and deeply-flawed focus of self-selecting, middle-class white elite. This white,
western elite is represented by British journalists, British politicians,
British international bureaucrats, Canadian and American Human Rights activists
- all of whom were commenting on the internal affairs of a sovereign state.
This western self-indulgence - interventionism as it were by
media - clearly endangers peace and reconciliation within post-war Sri Lanka. It
inevitably fans the flames of the very extremism that was defeated at the end of
the civil war. This sort of external media campaigning will encourage
intransigence within those political forces historically identified with LTTE
extremism - intransigence which will postpone a final political settlement
within Sri Lanka.
The programme was made up in large part of essentially rehashed
and repackaged allegations edited and reformatted in time for presentation at -
and with the clear intention of influencing - the United Nations Human Rights
Council meetings in Geneva, and any possible vote regarding Sri Lanka within
those meetings. Channel 4 News' objective was self-evidently more political and
partisan than objective and journalistic. It was "advocacy" in the guise of
journalism.
The self-publicised presence of Callum Macrae, the director of
both of Channel 4 News' programmes on Sri Lanka, in Geneva during the meetings
of the Human Rights Council amply demonstrates the real motivation for the
programme and why it was screened when it was.
That Channel 4 News has continued to rely largely upon
sensationalist materials made available to it by anti-government groups and
individuals. Unnamed and disguised "witnesses" are once again used by Channel 4,
together with sworn statements by an unnamed Sri Lankan "Army Officer".
For all the focus on Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government and
military and the country's civil war, Channel 4 still makes fundamental mistakes
in describing Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the Minister of Defence as opposed to his
actual position as the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
There is no mention yet again of the fact that the LTTE were a
terrorist organisation.
There is no focus on the fact that the LTTE forced hundreds of
thousands of civilians to accompany them or that they killed civilians to
prevent them leaving.
There is no mention whatsoever of the fact that the LTTE had
artillery and mortar units and that these fired into the No Fire Zones and at
hospitals. Ironically, the only picture of an artillery piece being fired
appears to be one manned by the LTTE.
David Miliband's comments are somewhat undermined by the fact
that Wikileaks showed that his interest in Sri Lankan was solely the result of
the influence of Tamil voters within the United Kingdom. Miliband's stated
concerns for Human Rights investigations and justice do not extend to his own
country's 30 year civil war in Northern Ireland (ended with an amnesty) or the
responsibility the government of which he was part for thousands of civilian
deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The consistent telecasts have had no objectives other than to
name and shame Sri Lanka with unsubstantiated materials quite contrary to the
ethics of journalism and international norms. The commercialization behind the
telecast is possibly the only motivating factor that drives Channel 4 towards
this scurrilous campaign against Sri Lanka.
LTTE's money talks again
Channel4 has come up with another disgusting piece of journalism
aimed at tarnishing Sri Lanka's reputation. We deny outright the wild
allegations contained therein.
The programme is yet another example of western media arrogance
in dealing with or claiming to report on the emergent and developing world. Sri
Lanka may be in focus at the moment, but it will be another developing world
country in the not too distant future.
The programme represents nothing more than the self-indulgent
and deeply-flawed focus of self-selecting, middle-class white elite. This white,
western elite is represented by British journalists, British politicians,
British international bureaucrats, Canadian and American Human Rights activists
- all of whom were commenting on the internal affairs of a sovereign state.
This western self-indulgence - interventionism as it were by
media - clearly endangers peace and reconciliation within post-war Sri Lanka. It
inevitably fans the flames of the very extremism that was defeated at the end of
the civil war. This sort of external media campaigning will encourage
intransigence within those political forces historically identified with LTTE
extremism - intransigence which will postpone a final political settlement
within Sri Lanka.
The programme was made up in large part of essentially rehashed
and repackaged allegations edited and reformatted in time for presentation at -
and with the clear intention of influencing - the United Nations Human Rights
Council meetings in Geneva, and any possible vote regarding Sri Lanka within
those meetings. Channel 4 News' objective was self-evidently more political and
partisan than objective and journalistic. It was "advocacy" in the guise of
journalism.
The self-publicised presence of Callum Macrae, the director of
both of Channel 4 News' programmes on Sri Lanka, in Geneva during the meetings
of the Human Rights Council amply demonstrates the real motivation for the
programme and why it was screened when it was.
That Channel 4 News has continued to rely largely upon
sensationalist materials made available to it by anti-government groups and
individuals. Unnamed and disguised "witnesses" are once again used by Channel 4,
together with sworn statements by an unnamed Sri Lankan "Army Officer".
For all the focus on Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government and
military and the country's civil war, Channel 4 still makes fundamental mistakes
in describing Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the Minister of Defence as opposed to his
actual position as the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
There is no mention yet again of the fact that the LTTE were a
terrorist organisation.
There is no focus on the fact that the LTTE forced hundreds of
thousands of civilians to accompany them or that they killed civilians to
prevent them leaving.
There is no mention whatsoever of the fact that the LTTE had
artillery and mortar units and that these fired into the No Fire Zones and at
hospitals. Ironically, the only picture of an artillery piece being fired
appears to be one manned by the LTTE.
David Miliband's comments are somewhat undermined by the fact
that Wikileaks showed that his interest in Sri Lankan was solely the result of
the influence of Tamil voters within the United Kingdom. Miliband's stated
concerns for Human Rights investigations and justice do not extend to his own
country's 30 year civil war in Northern Ireland (ended with an amnesty) or the
responsibility the government of which he was part for thousands of civilian
deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The consistent telecasts have had no objectives other than to
name and shame Sri Lanka with unsubstantiated materials quite contrary to the
ethics of journalism and international norms. The commercialization behind the
telecast is possibly the only motivating factor that drives Channel 4 towards
this scurrilous campaign against Sri Lanka.
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=Threat_from_LTTE_terrorism_has_not_completely_died_Defence Secy_20120322_01
Threat from LTTE terrorism has not completely died - Defence Secy
There were thousands of LTTE cadres still at large with caches
of arms and explosives dumps hidden in the former war zone and, therefore, the
threat of terrorism persisted to some extent, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya
Rajapaksa said.
Speaking to heads of media institutions and newspaper editors
yesterday at the Defence Ministry yesterday, the Defence Secretary said some
people mistakenly believed that simply because the LTTE had been defeated and
Prabhakaran killed, terrorism was over. Several attempts to revive the LTTE
since the conclusion of the war had been foiled, he said.
However, people should not panic as the situation was under
control and the security forces were ready to meet any eventuality, the Defence
Secretary said.
About 11,000 LTTE cadres who either surrendered to the security
forces or were captured during the war had been rehabilitated and reunited with
their families and about 3,800 out of 4,000 LTTE detainees had been released;
about 4,000 LTTE members who had escaped were still at large, the Defence
Secretary said.
The government had lifted Emergency and done away with high
security zones and checkpoints in spite of security risks. Anyone could travel
to and from the former war zone without undergoing checks. The houses taken over
by the military had been handed over to their owners, he said.
There were no armed groups other than the members of the
security forces in the North and the crime rate in that part of the country was
much lower than that in other areas, the Defence Secretary said. "We have
information that about 20,000 Sri Lankan expatriates have visited those areas
since the end of the war."
Commenting on the allegation that the military targeted no-fire
zones after asking civilians to move there, the Defence Secretary said the
government had not declared separate areas as no-fire zones. The places where
the LTTE forcibly took civilians as a human shield had been designated as such.
He said the LTTE had prevented the people from moving into the army-held areas
and neither the UN nor the NGOs that were levelling unsubstantiated war crimes
charges against the military and the government had asked the LTTE to let go of
civilians without exposing them to danger.
Commenting on Indo-Lanka relations the Defence Secretary said
Sri Lanka's ties with India will remain cordial as they have been at all times.
"We have to understand the domestic political compulsions for
the Indian government," he said referring to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh's statement in Lok Sabha that India was "inclined" to support the
resolution.
Threat from LTTE terrorism has not completely died - Defence Secy
There were thousands of LTTE cadres still at large with caches
of arms and explosives dumps hidden in the former war zone and, therefore, the
threat of terrorism persisted to some extent, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya
Rajapaksa said.
Speaking to heads of media institutions and newspaper editors
yesterday at the Defence Ministry yesterday, the Defence Secretary said some
people mistakenly believed that simply because the LTTE had been defeated and
Prabhakaran killed, terrorism was over. Several attempts to revive the LTTE
since the conclusion of the war had been foiled, he said.
However, people should not panic as the situation was under
control and the security forces were ready to meet any eventuality, the Defence
Secretary said.
About 11,000 LTTE cadres who either surrendered to the security
forces or were captured during the war had been rehabilitated and reunited with
their families and about 3,800 out of 4,000 LTTE detainees had been released;
about 4,000 LTTE members who had escaped were still at large, the Defence
Secretary said.
The government had lifted Emergency and done away with high
security zones and checkpoints in spite of security risks. Anyone could travel
to and from the former war zone without undergoing checks. The houses taken over
by the military had been handed over to their owners, he said.
There were no armed groups other than the members of the
security forces in the North and the crime rate in that part of the country was
much lower than that in other areas, the Defence Secretary said. "We have
information that about 20,000 Sri Lankan expatriates have visited those areas
since the end of the war."
Commenting on the allegation that the military targeted no-fire
zones after asking civilians to move there, the Defence Secretary said the
government had not declared separate areas as no-fire zones. The places where
the LTTE forcibly took civilians as a human shield had been designated as such.
He said the LTTE had prevented the people from moving into the army-held areas
and neither the UN nor the NGOs that were levelling unsubstantiated war crimes
charges against the military and the government had asked the LTTE to let go of
civilians without exposing them to danger.
Commenting on Indo-Lanka relations the Defence Secretary said
Sri Lanka's ties with India will remain cordial as they have been at all times.
"We have to understand the domestic political compulsions for
the Indian government," he said referring to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh's statement in Lok Sabha that India was "inclined" to support the
resolution.
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=lttes_money_talks_again_20120315_07
LTTE's money talks again
Channel4 has come up with another disgusting piece of journalism
aimed at tarnishing Sri Lanka's reputation. We deny outright the wild
allegations contained therein.
The programme is yet another example of western media arrogance
in dealing with or claiming to report on the emergent and developing world. Sri
Lanka may be in focus at the moment, but it will be another developing world
country in the not too distant future.
The programme represents nothing more than the self-indulgent
and deeply-flawed focus of self-selecting, middle-class white elite. This white,
western elite is represented by British journalists, British politicians,
British international bureaucrats, Canadian and American Human Rights activists
- all of whom were commenting on the internal affairs of a sovereign state.
This western self-indulgence - interventionism as it were by
media - clearly endangers peace and reconciliation within post-war Sri Lanka. It
inevitably fans the flames of the very extremism that was defeated at the end of
the civil war. This sort of external media campaigning will encourage
intransigence within those political forces historically identified with LTTE
extremism - intransigence which will postpone a final political settlement
within Sri Lanka.
The programme was made up in large part of essentially rehashed
and repackaged allegations edited and reformatted in time for presentation at -
and with the clear intention of influencing - the United Nations Human Rights
Council meetings in Geneva, and any possible vote regarding Sri Lanka within
those meetings. Channel 4 News' objective was self-evidently more political and
partisan than objective and journalistic. It was "advocacy" in the guise of
journalism.
The self-publicised presence of Callum Macrae, the director of
both of Channel 4 News' programmes on Sri Lanka, in Geneva during the meetings
of the Human Rights Council amply demonstrates the real motivation for the
programme and why it was screened when it was.
That Channel 4 News has continued to rely largely upon
sensationalist materials made available to it by anti-government groups and
individuals. Unnamed and disguised "witnesses" are once again used by Channel 4,
together with sworn statements by an unnamed Sri Lankan "Army Officer".
For all the focus on Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government and
military and the country's civil war, Channel 4 still makes fundamental mistakes
in describing Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the Minister of Defence as opposed to his
actual position as the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
There is no mention yet again of the fact that the LTTE were a
terrorist organisation.
There is no focus on the fact that the LTTE forced hundreds of
thousands of civilians to accompany them or that they killed civilians to
prevent them leaving.
There is no mention whatsoever of the fact that the LTTE had
artillery and mortar units and that these fired into the No Fire Zones and at
hospitals. Ironically, the only picture of an artillery piece being fired
appears to be one manned by the LTTE.
David Miliband's comments are somewhat undermined by the fact
that Wikileaks showed that his interest in Sri Lankan was solely the result of
the influence of Tamil voters within the United Kingdom. Miliband's stated
concerns for Human Rights investigations and justice do not extend to his own
country's 30 year civil war in Northern Ireland (ended with an amnesty) or the
responsibility the government of which he was part for thousands of civilian
deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The consistent telecasts have had no objectives other than to
name and shame Sri Lanka with unsubstantiated materials quite contrary to the
ethics of journalism and international norms. The commercialization behind the
telecast is possibly the only motivating factor that drives Channel 4 towards
this scurrilous campaign against Sri Lanka.
LTTE's money talks again
Channel4 has come up with another disgusting piece of journalism
aimed at tarnishing Sri Lanka's reputation. We deny outright the wild
allegations contained therein.
The programme is yet another example of western media arrogance
in dealing with or claiming to report on the emergent and developing world. Sri
Lanka may be in focus at the moment, but it will be another developing world
country in the not too distant future.
The programme represents nothing more than the self-indulgent
and deeply-flawed focus of self-selecting, middle-class white elite. This white,
western elite is represented by British journalists, British politicians,
British international bureaucrats, Canadian and American Human Rights activists
- all of whom were commenting on the internal affairs of a sovereign state.
This western self-indulgence - interventionism as it were by
media - clearly endangers peace and reconciliation within post-war Sri Lanka. It
inevitably fans the flames of the very extremism that was defeated at the end of
the civil war. This sort of external media campaigning will encourage
intransigence within those political forces historically identified with LTTE
extremism - intransigence which will postpone a final political settlement
within Sri Lanka.
The programme was made up in large part of essentially rehashed
and repackaged allegations edited and reformatted in time for presentation at -
and with the clear intention of influencing - the United Nations Human Rights
Council meetings in Geneva, and any possible vote regarding Sri Lanka within
those meetings. Channel 4 News' objective was self-evidently more political and
partisan than objective and journalistic. It was "advocacy" in the guise of
journalism.
The self-publicised presence of Callum Macrae, the director of
both of Channel 4 News' programmes on Sri Lanka, in Geneva during the meetings
of the Human Rights Council amply demonstrates the real motivation for the
programme and why it was screened when it was.
That Channel 4 News has continued to rely largely upon
sensationalist materials made available to it by anti-government groups and
individuals. Unnamed and disguised "witnesses" are once again used by Channel 4,
together with sworn statements by an unnamed Sri Lankan "Army Officer".
For all the focus on Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government and
military and the country's civil war, Channel 4 still makes fundamental mistakes
in describing Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the Minister of Defence as opposed to his
actual position as the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
There is no mention yet again of the fact that the LTTE were a
terrorist organisation.
There is no focus on the fact that the LTTE forced hundreds of
thousands of civilians to accompany them or that they killed civilians to
prevent them leaving.
There is no mention whatsoever of the fact that the LTTE had
artillery and mortar units and that these fired into the No Fire Zones and at
hospitals. Ironically, the only picture of an artillery piece being fired
appears to be one manned by the LTTE.
David Miliband's comments are somewhat undermined by the fact
that Wikileaks showed that his interest in Sri Lankan was solely the result of
the influence of Tamil voters within the United Kingdom. Miliband's stated
concerns for Human Rights investigations and justice do not extend to his own
country's 30 year civil war in Northern Ireland (ended with an amnesty) or the
responsibility the government of which he was part for thousands of civilian
deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The consistent telecasts have had no objectives other than to
name and shame Sri Lanka with unsubstantiated materials quite contrary to the
ethics of journalism and international norms. The commercialization behind the
telecast is possibly the only motivating factor that drives Channel 4 towards
this scurrilous campaign against Sri Lanka.
http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/03/24/pol01.asp
No tolerance of interference in SL’s affairs - President
*‘Government guided by people’s interests’
*‘We would consolidate hard won peace’
Rasika SOMARATHNA
Sri Lanka, as an independent country would not give in to any arbitrary
interference in its affairs. The government’s policy in respect of all matters
will continue to be guided by the vital interests and well being of the people,
President Mahinda Rajapaksa asserted yesterday.
President Mahinda
Rajapaksa
Referring to the resolution on Sri Lanka adopted by the United Nations Human
Rights Council, he said that Sri Lanka’s narrow defeat in Geneva would please
the LTTE proxies and the diaspora but not the people of Sri Lanka.
The President also appreciated the stand taken by the 15 countries that voted
with Sri Lanka and the eight countries which by abstaining declined to support
it (23 out of 47), despite the intensity of pressure, in a variety of forms,
exerted on them all. President Rajapaksa addressing the large gathering at a
main ceremony held at Wevita Maithri Vidyalaya premises, Bandaragama also noted
that what Sri Lankans sought from his government when it came to power in 2005
was the establishment of freedom and honourable peace.
He pointed out that the government had done that and more in a very short
span without succumbing to pressure or influences.
“As a result,” he said “the country today was on the path to rapid economic
development while ensuring freedom and dignity of all people without
discrimination.”
He stressed that whatever obstacles faced, the government was determined to
carry forward and consolidate on the hard earned gains of establishing peace,
stability and propagating development which were achieved after 30 years of
instability and violence. The main ceremony at the launch of the Eka Gamakata
Eka Wedak - development projects for all villages programme- was held at
Bandaragama. The programme was simultaneously launched in all Grama Seva
divisions (over 14,000) in the country yesterday.
Accordingly, development projects will be carried out in all villages for the
benefit of people with Rs. one million allocated for each project.
The President also pointed out that development was wholesome and was not
confined to any single sector or area and also spiritual and morale habits of
the people too were improving since the end of violence.
However, he pointed out that some elements were blind to this impressive
progress in all sectors as their eyes were clouded by jealousy, hatred and petty
interest.
The President said that certain elements that never went to the north were
going there after a resolution came up against the country in Geneva and were
preaching that the government has not done anything in the area.
"To whom are they trying to send this message and for whose benefit are they
working at such a crucial time for the country? the President questioned.
The President also pointed out that the present government had always
dedicated itself to ensuring democracy, promotion and protection of human
rights, guaranteeing equality, dignity, justice and respect for all.
"In ensuring promotion and protection of human rights the country always has
looked to the values it has nurtured in its proud 2,500 year history and
religious teachings of all faiths, he added.
"However, when some country's are trying to stand on their own feet, there
are some elements with vested interests who try to bring them down, using
various issues", he added.
President Rajapaksa pointed out that despite the malicious agendas of these
elements, the ordinary masses were speaking with one voice on behalf of the
country.
He said that Sri Lanka would continue to seek domestic remedies for its
issues. "Whatever the challenges we would not allow the ugly head of terrorism
to re-surface. We would consolidate and achieve further progress in our quest
towards achieving development, peace and prosperity, he added.
He urged the people to rally round the government to build the country
without falling victim to malicious propaganda. On the development initiative
launched yesterday he said that this was a historic one which would further
consolidate the ongoing development at village level. He also said that many
such projects which will benefit the people are in the pipeline.
The new initiative launched yesterday is another project under the national
development programme "Gama Neguma" which is being conducted under the purview
of Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa.
The Wevita Lake in Bandaragama is to be renovated under the 'Eka Gamakata Eka
Wedak' programme. During yesterday's ceremony the President also commissioned
the Wevita Maithri Vidyalaya as a secondary school. Many other development
initiatives too were opened in the area to coincide with the occasion.
Ministers Basil Rajapaksa, Ratnasiri Wickremenayake, Bandula Gunewardene,
Rohitha Abeygunewardene, Reginald Cooray, Western Chief Minister Prasanna
Ranatunge, Janaka Bandara MP, members of the clergy, school teachers, students
and a large crowd were present.
No tolerance of interference in SL’s affairs - President
*‘Government guided by people’s interests’
*‘We would consolidate hard won peace’
Rasika SOMARATHNA
Sri Lanka, as an independent country would not give in to any arbitrary
interference in its affairs. The government’s policy in respect of all matters
will continue to be guided by the vital interests and well being of the people,
President Mahinda Rajapaksa asserted yesterday.
President Mahinda
Rajapaksa
Referring to the resolution on Sri Lanka adopted by the United Nations Human
Rights Council, he said that Sri Lanka’s narrow defeat in Geneva would please
the LTTE proxies and the diaspora but not the people of Sri Lanka.
The President also appreciated the stand taken by the 15 countries that voted
with Sri Lanka and the eight countries which by abstaining declined to support
it (23 out of 47), despite the intensity of pressure, in a variety of forms,
exerted on them all. President Rajapaksa addressing the large gathering at a
main ceremony held at Wevita Maithri Vidyalaya premises, Bandaragama also noted
that what Sri Lankans sought from his government when it came to power in 2005
was the establishment of freedom and honourable peace.
He pointed out that the government had done that and more in a very short
span without succumbing to pressure or influences.
“As a result,” he said “the country today was on the path to rapid economic
development while ensuring freedom and dignity of all people without
discrimination.”
He stressed that whatever obstacles faced, the government was determined to
carry forward and consolidate on the hard earned gains of establishing peace,
stability and propagating development which were achieved after 30 years of
instability and violence. The main ceremony at the launch of the Eka Gamakata
Eka Wedak - development projects for all villages programme- was held at
Bandaragama. The programme was simultaneously launched in all Grama Seva
divisions (over 14,000) in the country yesterday.
Accordingly, development projects will be carried out in all villages for the
benefit of people with Rs. one million allocated for each project.
The President also pointed out that development was wholesome and was not
confined to any single sector or area and also spiritual and morale habits of
the people too were improving since the end of violence.
However, he pointed out that some elements were blind to this impressive
progress in all sectors as their eyes were clouded by jealousy, hatred and petty
interest.
The President said that certain elements that never went to the north were
going there after a resolution came up against the country in Geneva and were
preaching that the government has not done anything in the area.
"To whom are they trying to send this message and for whose benefit are they
working at such a crucial time for the country? the President questioned.
The President also pointed out that the present government had always
dedicated itself to ensuring democracy, promotion and protection of human
rights, guaranteeing equality, dignity, justice and respect for all.
"In ensuring promotion and protection of human rights the country always has
looked to the values it has nurtured in its proud 2,500 year history and
religious teachings of all faiths, he added.
"However, when some country's are trying to stand on their own feet, there
are some elements with vested interests who try to bring them down, using
various issues", he added.
President Rajapaksa pointed out that despite the malicious agendas of these
elements, the ordinary masses were speaking with one voice on behalf of the
country.
He said that Sri Lanka would continue to seek domestic remedies for its
issues. "Whatever the challenges we would not allow the ugly head of terrorism
to re-surface. We would consolidate and achieve further progress in our quest
towards achieving development, peace and prosperity, he added.
He urged the people to rally round the government to build the country
without falling victim to malicious propaganda. On the development initiative
launched yesterday he said that this was a historic one which would further
consolidate the ongoing development at village level. He also said that many
such projects which will benefit the people are in the pipeline.
The new initiative launched yesterday is another project under the national
development programme "Gama Neguma" which is being conducted under the purview
of Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa.
The Wevita Lake in Bandaragama is to be renovated under the 'Eka Gamakata Eka
Wedak' programme. During yesterday's ceremony the President also commissioned
the Wevita Maithri Vidyalaya as a secondary school. Many other development
initiatives too were opened in the area to coincide with the occasion.
Ministers Basil Rajapaksa, Ratnasiri Wickremenayake, Bandula Gunewardene,
Rohitha Abeygunewardene, Reginald Cooray, Western Chief Minister Prasanna
Ranatunge, Janaka Bandara MP, members of the clergy, school teachers, students
and a large crowd were present.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/03/23/pol01.asp
Only one vote majority for resolution; 24 say ‘yes’, 23 decline
to support:
Might overrules right
*China, Russia and Cuba vote in favour
*Abstentions, a plus for Lanka
*‘Misconceived, unwarranted and ill-timed resolution’
*‘Those who live in glass houses are best advised to exercise caution before
throwing stones’
The United Nations Human Rights Council(UNHRC) yesterday passed the U S
sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka with 24 countries in favour and 15
against with eight abstentions, which were essentially countries who are
supporters of Sri Lanka. This brought the voting tally to 24 for and 23 against
the resolution. Cuba, China and Russia, strong allies of the country voted
against the resolution.
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe
Earlier in the day, the chances of the US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka
being carried with a majority vote, increasingly looked the likely scenario with
many of the countries who had hitherto pledged their allegiance to Sri Lanka
backing away in the wake of intense pressure mounted by the USA and its allies.
Despite this Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe and the rest of the delegation
made a fervent bid to change the minds of the uncommitted delegates to consider
Sri Lanka’s case in a favourable light,but it was apparent that a majority were
prepared to vote in favour of the resolution or abstain due to the pressure
exerted by US and its ability to wield its economic clout. However, only 24
countries voted in favour of the resolution in the 47-member Council.
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe addressing the Council before the vote
yesterday said that after 30 long years of instability and violence Sri Lanka
has now achieved stability and peace.
"We need to be given time to further consolidate the clear progress that has
been achieved in a short period of three years" he added.
He said "it is against this backdrop that my country is compelled to face a
misconceived, unwarranted and ill-timed draft resolution, which embodies several
harmful elements that clearly violates important principles that will have
adverse ramifications, not only for my country, but many other countries"
The minister added " This is why we took a decision, on a matter of
principle, that we will not accept such a resolution, in an endeavour to also
ensure that a bad precedent is not established by this council" The minister
also said that the resolution also runs counter to the principle of
international law that domestic remedies must be exhausted and should be the
first resort, prior to superimposing external mechanisms.
"In respect of Sri Lanka's situation it is barely three months since the
presentation of the domestic mechanism's report. Is it fair for this council to
pre-judge our commitment to all aspects of the domestic process at this
juncture", he questioned.
He also pointed out that Sri Lanka has been a role model of, consistently and
unambiguously, engaging with everyone in the council at all times over the
years, including during the height of terror. Many other countries too spoke in
favour of Sri Lanka while endorsing the country's view that it needs more time
and space to address relevant issues without external interferences.
[Voting at the UNHRC sessions in Geneva]
It is against any country putting pressure on others in the name of rights
violations. Sri Lanka has made rapid progress on Human Rights and realization of
reconciliation process - China
The resolution was not necessary at this point of time. Sri Lanka should be
given time to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). We understand the trauma that Sri Lanka went
through due to the war – The Maldives
We oppose the resolution as it is an attempt to dictate terms on a sovereign
State how it should handle domestic issues - Russia
The Human Rights Council should not take a biased approach on Sri Lanka. Sri
Lanka has shown willingness to improve its human rights situation. It has
appointed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission to investigate issues
in the aftermath of the conflict - Equador
We question the legitimacy and credibility of the draft resolution put
forward by the US on Sri Lanka branding it “unjustified and unnecessary”. The US
had still not closed its prison at Guantanamo despite President Barrack Obama
promising that it would be. This could possibly become a point of confrontation
and that it would be best if the resolution on Sri Lanka could be postponed -
Cuba
Sri Lanka is struggling to rise out of the ashes of 30 years conflict which
claimed thousands of innocent civilians in the country. It should be given more
time to promote reconciliation. The resolution makes a negative impact on the
smooth process of reconciliation of Sri Lanka - Bangladesh
We are against the resolution against Sri Lanka at this juncture as three
years have only elapsed after the conflict - Kuwait
The technical advice mentioned within the resolution should not be used as an
instrument of pressure on the have-nots. - Philippines
Sri Lanka as a member of the Non Aligned Movement has taken tremendous
efforts to promote reconciliation in the aftermath of conflict - Qatar
Sri Lanka should be given more time to heal the wounds of conflict - Congo
Sri Lanka has taken many positive steps towards the implementation of the
LLRC commission and external pressure at this juncture is totally unwarranted -
Indonesia
We oppose the efforts to meddle with internal affairs of Sri Lanka –
Thailand
Sri Lanka eradicated terrorism which destroyed the country for over three
decades. The country has taken a number of steps to promote reconciliation –
Uganda
We are of the view that Sri Lanka should have more time for reconciliation
– Saudi Arabia
Lanka has made tremendous strides towards development in the aftermath of
conflict - Mauritius
Only one vote majority for resolution; 24 say ‘yes’, 23 decline
to support:
Might overrules right
*China, Russia and Cuba vote in favour
*Abstentions, a plus for Lanka
*‘Misconceived, unwarranted and ill-timed resolution’
*‘Those who live in glass houses are best advised to exercise caution before
throwing stones’
The United Nations Human Rights Council(UNHRC) yesterday passed the U S
sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka with 24 countries in favour and 15
against with eight abstentions, which were essentially countries who are
supporters of Sri Lanka. This brought the voting tally to 24 for and 23 against
the resolution. Cuba, China and Russia, strong allies of the country voted
against the resolution.
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe
Earlier in the day, the chances of the US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka
being carried with a majority vote, increasingly looked the likely scenario with
many of the countries who had hitherto pledged their allegiance to Sri Lanka
backing away in the wake of intense pressure mounted by the USA and its allies.
Despite this Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe and the rest of the delegation
made a fervent bid to change the minds of the uncommitted delegates to consider
Sri Lanka’s case in a favourable light,but it was apparent that a majority were
prepared to vote in favour of the resolution or abstain due to the pressure
exerted by US and its ability to wield its economic clout. However, only 24
countries voted in favour of the resolution in the 47-member Council.
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe addressing the Council before the vote
yesterday said that after 30 long years of instability and violence Sri Lanka
has now achieved stability and peace.
"We need to be given time to further consolidate the clear progress that has
been achieved in a short period of three years" he added.
He said "it is against this backdrop that my country is compelled to face a
misconceived, unwarranted and ill-timed draft resolution, which embodies several
harmful elements that clearly violates important principles that will have
adverse ramifications, not only for my country, but many other countries"
The minister added " This is why we took a decision, on a matter of
principle, that we will not accept such a resolution, in an endeavour to also
ensure that a bad precedent is not established by this council" The minister
also said that the resolution also runs counter to the principle of
international law that domestic remedies must be exhausted and should be the
first resort, prior to superimposing external mechanisms.
"In respect of Sri Lanka's situation it is barely three months since the
presentation of the domestic mechanism's report. Is it fair for this council to
pre-judge our commitment to all aspects of the domestic process at this
juncture", he questioned.
He also pointed out that Sri Lanka has been a role model of, consistently and
unambiguously, engaging with everyone in the council at all times over the
years, including during the height of terror. Many other countries too spoke in
favour of Sri Lanka while endorsing the country's view that it needs more time
and space to address relevant issues without external interferences.
[Voting at the UNHRC sessions in Geneva]
It is against any country putting pressure on others in the name of rights
violations. Sri Lanka has made rapid progress on Human Rights and realization of
reconciliation process - China
The resolution was not necessary at this point of time. Sri Lanka should be
given time to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). We understand the trauma that Sri Lanka went
through due to the war – The Maldives
We oppose the resolution as it is an attempt to dictate terms on a sovereign
State how it should handle domestic issues - Russia
The Human Rights Council should not take a biased approach on Sri Lanka. Sri
Lanka has shown willingness to improve its human rights situation. It has
appointed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission to investigate issues
in the aftermath of the conflict - Equador
We question the legitimacy and credibility of the draft resolution put
forward by the US on Sri Lanka branding it “unjustified and unnecessary”. The US
had still not closed its prison at Guantanamo despite President Barrack Obama
promising that it would be. This could possibly become a point of confrontation
and that it would be best if the resolution on Sri Lanka could be postponed -
Cuba
Sri Lanka is struggling to rise out of the ashes of 30 years conflict which
claimed thousands of innocent civilians in the country. It should be given more
time to promote reconciliation. The resolution makes a negative impact on the
smooth process of reconciliation of Sri Lanka - Bangladesh
We are against the resolution against Sri Lanka at this juncture as three
years have only elapsed after the conflict - Kuwait
The technical advice mentioned within the resolution should not be used as an
instrument of pressure on the have-nots. - Philippines
Sri Lanka as a member of the Non Aligned Movement has taken tremendous
efforts to promote reconciliation in the aftermath of conflict - Qatar
Sri Lanka should be given more time to heal the wounds of conflict - Congo
Sri Lanka has taken many positive steps towards the implementation of the
LLRC commission and external pressure at this juncture is totally unwarranted -
Indonesia
We oppose the efforts to meddle with internal affairs of Sri Lanka –
Thailand
Sri Lanka eradicated terrorism which destroyed the country for over three
decades. The country has taken a number of steps to promote reconciliation –
Uganda
We are of the view that Sri Lanka should have more time for reconciliation
– Saudi Arabia
Lanka has made tremendous strides towards development in the aftermath of
conflict - Mauritius
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/03/22/pol01.asp
No foreign intervention will be condoned - President
*Protecting human rights not alien to Lankans
*Country placed on rapid development track
Dharma Sri Abeyratne and Prasad Purnamal Puttlam District
Group corr
President Mahinda Rajapaksa said yesterday that Sri Lankans are used to
protecting and safeguarding human rights for more than 2,500 years. He said
following the eradication of 30 years of terrorism and when the country has been
placed on a rapid development track, no foreign intervention will be allowed and
no one can meddle in the internal affairs of the country.
The President addressing the Puttlam district special Development Committee
meeting yesterday at Madampe, Chilaw, said Sri Lankans have been protecting
human rights since the introduction of Buddhism to the country.
“Protecting human rights and fulfilling the people’s aspirations in a
people-friendly manner are not new aspects to us” the President added.
The President invited all to join hands to develop the country and fulfill
their obligations. The government has taken every possible step to strengthen
the bonds among the people while safeguarding human rights.
The President added that this meeting also was being held to identify the
responsibilities and duties which have to be carried out for the country each
other.
The President advised politicians to perform their responsibilities with
diligence without political considerations or concerning politically motivated
targets. Every politician and government official is duty bound to stand for the
country while extending his utmost contribution to the development and
betterment of the country.
"Especially, politicians should stand for the country and its people. Having
identified their due responsibilities politicians must deliver to the maximum
for the betterment of the motherland", the President noted.
Addressing state officials, the President said that public servants should
lend a keen ear to issues forwarded by the people. Such issues should be
addressed with great dedication and in a friendly manner.
The President further noted that a mechanism will be put in place to solve
the human-elephant conflict which is a burning issue for the people in the
Puttlam district.
No foreign intervention will be condoned - President
*Protecting human rights not alien to Lankans
*Country placed on rapid development track
Dharma Sri Abeyratne and Prasad Purnamal Puttlam District
Group corr
President Mahinda Rajapaksa said yesterday that Sri Lankans are used to
protecting and safeguarding human rights for more than 2,500 years. He said
following the eradication of 30 years of terrorism and when the country has been
placed on a rapid development track, no foreign intervention will be allowed and
no one can meddle in the internal affairs of the country.
The President addressing the Puttlam district special Development Committee
meeting yesterday at Madampe, Chilaw, said Sri Lankans have been protecting
human rights since the introduction of Buddhism to the country.
“Protecting human rights and fulfilling the people’s aspirations in a
people-friendly manner are not new aspects to us” the President added.
The President invited all to join hands to develop the country and fulfill
their obligations. The government has taken every possible step to strengthen
the bonds among the people while safeguarding human rights.
The President added that this meeting also was being held to identify the
responsibilities and duties which have to be carried out for the country each
other.
The President advised politicians to perform their responsibilities with
diligence without political considerations or concerning politically motivated
targets. Every politician and government official is duty bound to stand for the
country while extending his utmost contribution to the development and
betterment of the country.
"Especially, politicians should stand for the country and its people. Having
identified their due responsibilities politicians must deliver to the maximum
for the betterment of the motherland", the President noted.
Addressing state officials, the President said that public servants should
lend a keen ear to issues forwarded by the people. Such issues should be
addressed with great dedication and in a friendly manner.
The President further noted that a mechanism will be put in place to solve
the human-elephant conflict which is a burning issue for the people in the
Puttlam district.
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=47961
Has India forgotten LTTE killed its soldiers? - Felix March 20, 2012, 10:22 pmHas India already forgotten the fact that it was the LTTE that killed over ten thousand of their soldiers, belonging to the Indian Peace Keeping Force, when it decided to vote for the US-led resolution against Sri Lanka for defeating the LTTE, Social Services Minister Felix Perera queried in Parliament yesterday. Minister Perera said that in addition to those who had been killed, over 22,000 Indian soldiers were maimed or disabled by the LTTE during the IPKF missions. "All those soldiers that were killed were buried there in Indian soil. It shames them when India today changes its stance and takes the side of those who try to extract revenge on Sri Lanka for defeating the LTTE," he said. Participating in the debate on regulations under the National Aquaculture Development Authority of Sri Lanka Act No 1, Minister Perera said: "By ending the war, Sri Lanka not only helped herself but India too. It is so unfortunate that India had forgotten those facts." (SI)
Has India forgotten LTTE killed its soldiers? - Felix March 20, 2012, 10:22 pmHas India already forgotten the fact that it was the LTTE that killed over ten thousand of their soldiers, belonging to the Indian Peace Keeping Force, when it decided to vote for the US-led resolution against Sri Lanka for defeating the LTTE, Social Services Minister Felix Perera queried in Parliament yesterday. Minister Perera said that in addition to those who had been killed, over 22,000 Indian soldiers were maimed or disabled by the LTTE during the IPKF missions. "All those soldiers that were killed were buried there in Indian soil. It shames them when India today changes its stance and takes the side of those who try to extract revenge on Sri Lanka for defeating the LTTE," he said. Participating in the debate on regulations under the National Aquaculture Development Authority of Sri Lanka Act No 1, Minister Perera said: "By ending the war, Sri Lanka not only helped herself but India too. It is so unfortunate that India had forgotten those facts." (SI)
http://www.nation.lk/edition/feature-viewpoint/item/4013-time-to-see-the-real-danger.html
Time to see the real danger! .
US submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The resolution contains both military-politico and war crimes related sections. The resolution refers to devolving power to the provinces, establishing independent commissions, ensuring media freedom and human rights. These are clear political elements. References to the removal of military camps from the North are military elements, while resolving land issues are military-politico issues. On the other hand, the resolution attempts to interfere in Sri Lanka’s reconciliation process by trying to make sure that the implementing of recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) come under the purview of Navi Pillai’s UN Human Right’s Council.SovereigntyAccording to all the definitions of the term that the US or any other country uses, Sri Lanka is a democratic country. The Executive, Legislature, Provincial Councils, and Pradeshiya Sabhas in this country have all been elected by popular vote. Issues related to devolution, establishing independent commissions, and discussing legal matters related to human rights and media freedom should be discussed in the country’s Parliament. No foreign power can give orders to Sri Lanka regarding how it should go about dealing with these issues. Such actions violate the sovereignty of the country and its people. It is also a violation of the UN Convention. The LLRC was appointed by the President. It is clear that the commission appears to have overreached its mandate in making some of its recommendations. However, it is purely an internal matter for Sri Lanka to decide whether these recommendations will be implemented or not, what mechanism would be used to do this, and structuring a timeline for their implementation. Uncle Sam and Aunty Pillai have no business interfering in these affairs. If Sri Lanka were to lose this vote, it would give legitimacy to the propaganda carried out throughout the world by Tamil Nazis. It would also open the door for the US to directly interfere in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs under the cover of the UN. As the Cuban delegate explained to the council, the US has tried to bring many such resolutions against their country over the years, yet Cuba is still firmly under the Castros. If however, Sri Lanka goes onto win the vote at the UNHRC, it will be one of the country’s greatest diplomatic triumphs. We have never before faced such an all out diplomatic offensive to have us cornered. While it is true that we were diplomatically cornered in 1984-1987, only Tamil Nadu and the Indian Central Government were involved on that occasion. Thus, while the task before us is enormous, victory at the UNHRC would go a long way towards strengthening the victory achieved by our forces against terrorism in 2009. It will pave the way for a more permanent peace.Combined assault The US doesn’t have rivers of blood running through Sri Lanka to show the world, like they could do in Sudan, Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria. There is no nuclear issue like in Iran and North Korea. There is no issue with democracy either, like in Myanmar. Thus, they have nothing to show the world at this moment that justifies interfering in Sri Lanka. What is most significant here is not whether the US resolution goes through or not, but the fact that the US submitted this resolution itself. Thus, no matter what happens at the UNHRC, it is certain that within a year, Sri Lanka will face either a lone assault from the US, or a combined assault from US and Europe. If the US does attack, it will target our nation’s economy. Our foreign reserves and resources, dollar transactions we undertake with American banks, our exports, and foreign reserves and properties we have within our borders, will all be targeted. We can shift our foreign reserves and resources away from the West to the East. However, it will not be easy to abandon the dollar transactions we undertake with US banks. In 2010, 56.1% of our exports were to Europe and the US (This was 62% in 2006). We still haven’t been able to direct most of our exports to countries such as Russia, India, China, Brazil and Africa. The government has a responsibility to lead from the front in this diplomatic offensive, while readying the nation’s economy to face an economic assault from the US. Neither the US nor the Tamil National Alliance is going to be satisfied with minor victories. Even certain measures we have taken in an attempt to placate them (such as the LLRC), may well come back to haunt us in the long-run. There is an increasingly aggressive attempt to destroy the country’s economy, much like what happened in 2001 under the Chandrika government. If we fail to see the danger properly and take preventive measures, 2013 will dawn with our country being increasingly strangled under the grip of the Americans.
Time to see the real danger! .
US submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The resolution contains both military-politico and war crimes related sections. The resolution refers to devolving power to the provinces, establishing independent commissions, ensuring media freedom and human rights. These are clear political elements. References to the removal of military camps from the North are military elements, while resolving land issues are military-politico issues. On the other hand, the resolution attempts to interfere in Sri Lanka’s reconciliation process by trying to make sure that the implementing of recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) come under the purview of Navi Pillai’s UN Human Right’s Council.SovereigntyAccording to all the definitions of the term that the US or any other country uses, Sri Lanka is a democratic country. The Executive, Legislature, Provincial Councils, and Pradeshiya Sabhas in this country have all been elected by popular vote. Issues related to devolution, establishing independent commissions, and discussing legal matters related to human rights and media freedom should be discussed in the country’s Parliament. No foreign power can give orders to Sri Lanka regarding how it should go about dealing with these issues. Such actions violate the sovereignty of the country and its people. It is also a violation of the UN Convention. The LLRC was appointed by the President. It is clear that the commission appears to have overreached its mandate in making some of its recommendations. However, it is purely an internal matter for Sri Lanka to decide whether these recommendations will be implemented or not, what mechanism would be used to do this, and structuring a timeline for their implementation. Uncle Sam and Aunty Pillai have no business interfering in these affairs. If Sri Lanka were to lose this vote, it would give legitimacy to the propaganda carried out throughout the world by Tamil Nazis. It would also open the door for the US to directly interfere in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs under the cover of the UN. As the Cuban delegate explained to the council, the US has tried to bring many such resolutions against their country over the years, yet Cuba is still firmly under the Castros. If however, Sri Lanka goes onto win the vote at the UNHRC, it will be one of the country’s greatest diplomatic triumphs. We have never before faced such an all out diplomatic offensive to have us cornered. While it is true that we were diplomatically cornered in 1984-1987, only Tamil Nadu and the Indian Central Government were involved on that occasion. Thus, while the task before us is enormous, victory at the UNHRC would go a long way towards strengthening the victory achieved by our forces against terrorism in 2009. It will pave the way for a more permanent peace.Combined assault The US doesn’t have rivers of blood running through Sri Lanka to show the world, like they could do in Sudan, Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria. There is no nuclear issue like in Iran and North Korea. There is no issue with democracy either, like in Myanmar. Thus, they have nothing to show the world at this moment that justifies interfering in Sri Lanka. What is most significant here is not whether the US resolution goes through or not, but the fact that the US submitted this resolution itself. Thus, no matter what happens at the UNHRC, it is certain that within a year, Sri Lanka will face either a lone assault from the US, or a combined assault from US and Europe. If the US does attack, it will target our nation’s economy. Our foreign reserves and resources, dollar transactions we undertake with American banks, our exports, and foreign reserves and properties we have within our borders, will all be targeted. We can shift our foreign reserves and resources away from the West to the East. However, it will not be easy to abandon the dollar transactions we undertake with US banks. In 2010, 56.1% of our exports were to Europe and the US (This was 62% in 2006). We still haven’t been able to direct most of our exports to countries such as Russia, India, China, Brazil and Africa. The government has a responsibility to lead from the front in this diplomatic offensive, while readying the nation’s economy to face an economic assault from the US. Neither the US nor the Tamil National Alliance is going to be satisfied with minor victories. Even certain measures we have taken in an attempt to placate them (such as the LLRC), may well come back to haunt us in the long-run. There is an increasingly aggressive attempt to destroy the country’s economy, much like what happened in 2001 under the Chandrika government. If we fail to see the danger properly and take preventive measures, 2013 will dawn with our country being increasingly strangled under the grip of the Americans.
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=sri_lankan_monks_and_clergy_protest_at_US_resolution_20120320_05
Sri Lankan Monks and clergy protest at US resolution
www.defence.lk">Thousands of Buddhist monks and other religious
clergy held adhistana pooja and satyagraha - praying for the defeat of US backed
resolution against Sri Lanka at the current session of the UNHRC.
Around 4000 Buddhist Monks with , Hindu, Muslim and Christian
clergy carrying national flags and preceded by traditional drummers gathered at
the Colombo Municipal ground prayed to invoke the blessings of deity to defeat
the US backed anti Sri Lankan resolution in Geneva
Adishtana pooja and Satyagraha organised by the Surakimu Maubima
National Organisation, to defeat anti-Sri Lankan forces and conspiracies held
Monday at 4.00 p.m. at the Viharamaha Devi Park, Colombo.
Over 4000 Buddhist monks and Hindu, Islam and Christian
religious dignitaries participated at the Satyagraha campaign along side this
adishtana pooja.
The pooja and Satyagraha was held to invoke the strength,
courage and blessings on all patriots to defeat the US sponsored anti Sri Lankan
resolution at the ongoing 19th Session of the UNHRC.
Courtesy : Department of Government Information
Sri Lankan Monks and clergy protest at US resolution
www.defence.lk">Thousands of Buddhist monks and other religious
clergy held adhistana pooja and satyagraha - praying for the defeat of US backed
resolution against Sri Lanka at the current session of the UNHRC.
Around 4000 Buddhist Monks with , Hindu, Muslim and Christian
clergy carrying national flags and preceded by traditional drummers gathered at
the Colombo Municipal ground prayed to invoke the blessings of deity to defeat
the US backed anti Sri Lankan resolution in Geneva
Adishtana pooja and Satyagraha organised by the Surakimu Maubima
National Organisation, to defeat anti-Sri Lankan forces and conspiracies held
Monday at 4.00 p.m. at the Viharamaha Devi Park, Colombo.
Over 4000 Buddhist monks and Hindu, Islam and Christian
religious dignitaries participated at the Satyagraha campaign along side this
adishtana pooja.
The pooja and Satyagraha was held to invoke the strength,
courage and blessings on all patriots to defeat the US sponsored anti Sri Lankan
resolution at the ongoing 19th Session of the UNHRC.
Courtesy : Department of Government Information
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=tamil_business_community_condemn_geneva_conspiracy_20120320_06
Tamil Business Community condemn Geneva Conspiracy
The Tamil Business Community staged a protest demonstration
yesterday to condemn the pro tiger terrorist conspiracies against Sri Lanka
being staged in Geneva.
Several hundred members of the community went in a foot
procession and handed over messages condemning the Geneva conspiracy to the
Indian High Commission, the Embassy of the United States and the British High
Commission in Sri Lanka.
They told the media that they condemn moves being made by the
pro-tiger terrorist elements to implicate war crime charges against the
President and the security forces personnel and said that it was due to the bold
steps taken by the President to liberate this country from the terrorists,
disregarding western moves to save the terrorists, that a peaceful atmosphere
has been created in the island and they can engage in their business activities
without fear and suspicion.
Courtesy : Department of Government Information
Tamil Business Community condemn Geneva Conspiracy
The Tamil Business Community staged a protest demonstration
yesterday to condemn the pro tiger terrorist conspiracies against Sri Lanka
being staged in Geneva.
Several hundred members of the community went in a foot
procession and handed over messages condemning the Geneva conspiracy to the
Indian High Commission, the Embassy of the United States and the British High
Commission in Sri Lanka.
They told the media that they condemn moves being made by the
pro-tiger terrorist elements to implicate war crime charges against the
President and the security forces personnel and said that it was due to the bold
steps taken by the President to liberate this country from the terrorists,
disregarding western moves to save the terrorists, that a peaceful atmosphere
has been created in the island and they can engage in their business activities
without fear and suspicion.
Courtesy : Department of Government Information
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=people_in_jaffna_refutes_US_resolution_20120320_03
People in Jaffna refutes US resolution
Massive flock of civilians took to the streets to protest
against the US supported resolution on Sri Lanka on last Saturday (17 Mar).
The 'Jaffna Civil Society Union' organized the protest. They
gathered at Doreiappa Stadium and marched towards the Jaffna Bus Stand. There
were over 7000 people including Tamils and Muslims, informed sources said.
They deliberately refuted the action initiated by the US on this
peaceful Island and said not to interfere in country's internal matters. They
displayed banners, posters and chanted anti US slogans at the protest.
Simultaneously, there were many protests were seen all over the
country against any international interferences on alleged human rights issues
in the country.
This is a clear indication that non of Sri Lankans irrespective
of their race or religion do not want any international involvements on this
country's internal issues but, very few extremists still licking the wounds of
LTTE remnants desperately in a bit to achieve terror objectives haven't yet
given up establishing so called dream Elam in Sri Lanka.
People in Jaffna refutes US resolution
Massive flock of civilians took to the streets to protest
against the US supported resolution on Sri Lanka on last Saturday (17 Mar).
The 'Jaffna Civil Society Union' organized the protest. They
gathered at Doreiappa Stadium and marched towards the Jaffna Bus Stand. There
were over 7000 people including Tamils and Muslims, informed sources said.
They deliberately refuted the action initiated by the US on this
peaceful Island and said not to interfere in country's internal matters. They
displayed banners, posters and chanted anti US slogans at the protest.
Simultaneously, there were many protests were seen all over the
country against any international interferences on alleged human rights issues
in the country.
This is a clear indication that non of Sri Lankans irrespective
of their race or religion do not want any international involvements on this
country's internal issues but, very few extremists still licking the wounds of
LTTE remnants desperately in a bit to achieve terror objectives haven't yet
given up establishing so called dream Elam in Sri Lanka.
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=India_should_stand_by_sri _lanka_20130320_04
India should stand by Sri Lanka - Daily Pioneer
Will it be in India's national interest to vote against Sri
Lanka at the UNHRC? The answer to that question is a resounding 'No', the Daily
Pioneer said in an editorial today (March 20).
If India actually votes for the resolution which is entirely
uncalled for and whose passage would be tantamount to both questioning the
sovereignty of Sri Lanka and interfering in its internal affairs, it would mark
a sharp departure from our long-standing policy of not voting for
country-specific resolutions that accuse specific Governments of 'human rights
violations, it added.
India's voting in favour of the US resolution against Sri Lanka
at the United Nations Human Rights Council would also amount to India wilfully
rubbing a friendly country in its neighborhood the wrong way and earning the
displeasure, if not anger, of its people who are otherwise favourably disposed
towards us, the newspaper said.
Full text of the editorial follows:
Nothing can be more tragic than to watch the Prime Minister of a
nation of more than a billion people meekly surrender to a minuscule few who
brazenly indulge in political blackmail. Mr Manmohan Singh, while replying to
the debate on the President's address in Parliament on Monday, said "coalition
compulsion" had forced his Government to consider voting in favour of the
US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights
Council. If India actually votes for the resolution which is entirely uncalled
for and whose passage would be tantamount to both questioning the sovereignty of
Sri Lanka and interfering in its internal affairs, it would mark a sharp
departure from our long-standing policy of not voting for country-specific
resolutions that accuse specific Governments of 'human rights violations'. It
would also amount to India wilfully rubbing a friendly country in its
neighbourhood the wrong way and earning the displeasure, if not anger, of its
people who are otherwise favourably disposed towards us. Already posters and
banners are up in Sri Lanka denouncing America and meddlesome countries of
Europe for trying to arm-twist the Rajapaksa Government into submission. The
question which we, the people of this country, should ask ourselves, and our
Government, is whether we would like India to be added to the list of countries
Sri Lankans despise. From that follows the second question: Will it be in
India's national interest to vote against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC? The answer to
that question is a resounding 'No'.
There are three reasons why India must not support the
resolution against Sri Lanka. First, it is a veiled attempt by the US and its
European allies to become the arbiters of Sri Lanka's future. The West was
stunned by the Sri Lankan military's remarkable victory in the war against the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, one of the most ruthless terrorist
organisations in the world. That feat was achieved without the assistance of
those who claim to lead the global war on terror. India should not be a party to
this sly attempt to browbeat Sri Lanka. Second, the UPA erred by adopting a
hands-off policy when the battle against the LTTE was raging. Had New Delhi been
more pro-active and played a decisive role, Colombo would not have had to turn
to Beijing for assistance. That lapse has led to enhanced relations between
China and Sri Lanka, and diminished India's stature. Third, by voting in favour
of the resolution, India will be paving the way for similar resolutions against
itself. In 1994 it required the combined effort of the then Prime Minister, PV
Narasimha Rao, his Minister for External Affairs, Dinesh Singh, and Mr Atal
Bihari Vajpayee (who was Leader of the Opposition) to scuttle a
Pakistan-sponsored, OIC-backed resolution against India, charging it with 'human
rights violations in Jammu & Kashmir', at the UN. Nothing prevents
busybodies in the EU to move similar resolutions against India, accusing it of
violating the rights of Maoists and other assorted terrorists. What will be
India's stand if that were to happen? Whom would it turn to for help? The DMK is
desperately trying to claw its way back into relevance and has seized upon bogus
sentiments to demonstrate its political clout. Neither the DMK nor those
sentiments should be pandered to.
Courtesy : PRIU
India should stand by Sri Lanka - Daily Pioneer
Will it be in India's national interest to vote against Sri
Lanka at the UNHRC? The answer to that question is a resounding 'No', the Daily
Pioneer said in an editorial today (March 20).
If India actually votes for the resolution which is entirely
uncalled for and whose passage would be tantamount to both questioning the
sovereignty of Sri Lanka and interfering in its internal affairs, it would mark
a sharp departure from our long-standing policy of not voting for
country-specific resolutions that accuse specific Governments of 'human rights
violations, it added.
India's voting in favour of the US resolution against Sri Lanka
at the United Nations Human Rights Council would also amount to India wilfully
rubbing a friendly country in its neighborhood the wrong way and earning the
displeasure, if not anger, of its people who are otherwise favourably disposed
towards us, the newspaper said.
Full text of the editorial follows:
Nothing can be more tragic than to watch the Prime Minister of a
nation of more than a billion people meekly surrender to a minuscule few who
brazenly indulge in political blackmail. Mr Manmohan Singh, while replying to
the debate on the President's address in Parliament on Monday, said "coalition
compulsion" had forced his Government to consider voting in favour of the
US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights
Council. If India actually votes for the resolution which is entirely uncalled
for and whose passage would be tantamount to both questioning the sovereignty of
Sri Lanka and interfering in its internal affairs, it would mark a sharp
departure from our long-standing policy of not voting for country-specific
resolutions that accuse specific Governments of 'human rights violations'. It
would also amount to India wilfully rubbing a friendly country in its
neighbourhood the wrong way and earning the displeasure, if not anger, of its
people who are otherwise favourably disposed towards us. Already posters and
banners are up in Sri Lanka denouncing America and meddlesome countries of
Europe for trying to arm-twist the Rajapaksa Government into submission. The
question which we, the people of this country, should ask ourselves, and our
Government, is whether we would like India to be added to the list of countries
Sri Lankans despise. From that follows the second question: Will it be in
India's national interest to vote against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC? The answer to
that question is a resounding 'No'.
There are three reasons why India must not support the
resolution against Sri Lanka. First, it is a veiled attempt by the US and its
European allies to become the arbiters of Sri Lanka's future. The West was
stunned by the Sri Lankan military's remarkable victory in the war against the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, one of the most ruthless terrorist
organisations in the world. That feat was achieved without the assistance of
those who claim to lead the global war on terror. India should not be a party to
this sly attempt to browbeat Sri Lanka. Second, the UPA erred by adopting a
hands-off policy when the battle against the LTTE was raging. Had New Delhi been
more pro-active and played a decisive role, Colombo would not have had to turn
to Beijing for assistance. That lapse has led to enhanced relations between
China and Sri Lanka, and diminished India's stature. Third, by voting in favour
of the resolution, India will be paving the way for similar resolutions against
itself. In 1994 it required the combined effort of the then Prime Minister, PV
Narasimha Rao, his Minister for External Affairs, Dinesh Singh, and Mr Atal
Bihari Vajpayee (who was Leader of the Opposition) to scuttle a
Pakistan-sponsored, OIC-backed resolution against India, charging it with 'human
rights violations in Jammu & Kashmir', at the UN. Nothing prevents
busybodies in the EU to move similar resolutions against India, accusing it of
violating the rights of Maoists and other assorted terrorists. What will be
India's stand if that were to happen? Whom would it turn to for help? The DMK is
desperately trying to claw its way back into relevance and has seized upon bogus
sentiments to demonstrate its political clout. Neither the DMK nor those
sentiments should be pandered to.
Courtesy : PRIU
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=most_of_north_free_of_landmines_20120321_02
Most of North free of landmines
Around 1,312 square kilometres of the Northern Province has been
cleared of landmines by the Army with the help of seven groups. There are only
103 square kilometres left to be cleared in the Northern Province, Economic
Development Ministry Additional Secretary Nihal Somaweera said.
"Eighty percent of the project was undertaken by the Army.
Around 2,000 trained Army personnel are engaged in removing landmines," he said.
Around 6,000 hectares of forests cover were cleaned for agricultural purposes.
These one time agricultural fields were covered by forests due to 30 years of
terrorist activities, he said.
The 300 kilometre sand barricade built during the conflict
period has also been removed, he said.
"Many shramadana campaigns were conducted utilising local man
power to provide infrastructure facilities for the Northern districts. The
Economic Development Ministry pays Rs 500 daily for each person involved," he
said. People in Jaffna, Mannar and Vavuniya districts have begun their own
livelihoods by now. Therefore, public participation in shramadana campaigns have
reduced by 50 percent in these districts, he said.
Courtesy : Daily news
Most of North free of landmines
Around 1,312 square kilometres of the Northern Province has been
cleared of landmines by the Army with the help of seven groups. There are only
103 square kilometres left to be cleared in the Northern Province, Economic
Development Ministry Additional Secretary Nihal Somaweera said.
"Eighty percent of the project was undertaken by the Army.
Around 2,000 trained Army personnel are engaged in removing landmines," he said.
Around 6,000 hectares of forests cover were cleaned for agricultural purposes.
These one time agricultural fields were covered by forests due to 30 years of
terrorist activities, he said.
The 300 kilometre sand barricade built during the conflict
period has also been removed, he said.
"Many shramadana campaigns were conducted utilising local man
power to provide infrastructure facilities for the Northern districts. The
Economic Development Ministry pays Rs 500 daily for each person involved," he
said. People in Jaffna, Mannar and Vavuniya districts have begun their own
livelihoods by now. Therefore, public participation in shramadana campaigns have
reduced by 50 percent in these districts, he said.
Courtesy : Daily news
Sri Lankan Doctors say they handled 300 child deliveries during the last
period of the conflict with LTTE
Sri Lankan medical professionals say they handled around 300
child delivery per month at the Cheddikulum Hospital during the last period of
war with the Tigers in 2009.
Dr.Hemantha Perera President of the Sri Lanka College of
Obstetricians & Gynecologists said that at the cessation of hostilities
internally displaced Sri Lankans were coming into temporary camps in large
numbers. The Sri Lanka College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (SLCOG),
being the apex body of professionals providing maternity care in Sri Lanka
anticipated that there would be a major need for maternity care for these
people. The SLCOG took the initiative of rallying all stakeholders towards
delivery of effective care.
He said that the health ministry had strengthened the Vavuniya
General hospital until the facilities in the Cheddikulum Hospital was
established to cater to the incoming Obstetric patients.
"We had had previous experience in providing emergency care in
disaster situations following the tsunami." Dr Perera said that all these
services were delivered to the people free of charge
A press release issued my the association says
We estimated that there would be about 3000 pregnant mothers
among these people. The Director General of Health Services (DGHS), Dr.Ajith
Mendis had already appointed a Coordinator and set up a special unit in order to
address health-related issues in these displaced Sri Lankans. On the request of
the SLCOG, the Secretary of Health and DGHS appointed a Task Force specifically
for maternity care.
As expected in a situation such as this, there were many health
issues that were recognized. Among these, maternity care required urgent
attention.
The Task Force identified the following urgent needs.
1. To register all pregnant mothers.
2. Setting up of antenatal clinics in all zones (Six zones) -
Our members visited all these clinics daily to examine the mothers who were
recognized as being in the high-risk category. The care given was of high
standard and included ultrasound scanning.
3. Setting up of an antenatal ward, a labor room and operating
theatre for cesarean section at Cheddikulum District Hospital. This was
originally a small hospital, which did not have these facilities.
4. Making available specialist and middle grade doctors trained
in obstetrics and gynaecology for round the clock service
5. Regular meetings were held with the DGHS, Coordinator of
Cheddikulum & relevant officials of Family Health Bureau, Ministry of
Health, other professional organizations and the field staff for provision of
smooth functioning of the above facilities.
6. Qualified Midwives were identified from among the displaced
people and their services were obtained.
7. All the needs of pregnant mothers including nutrition,
vitamin supplementation, transport to and from the hospitals, care of delivered
mothers and babies was arranged. An ultrasound scan was used to date the
pregnancies.
These activities were initiated and sustained for a period of
six months till the health care facilities of the war affected hospitals started
functioning. The quality of the service could be gauged by the absence of
maternal deaths during this period. We have not previously given publicity for
these facts because we considered these services as a part of professional
duties of Sri Lankans to fellow Sri Lankans. However, we thought it pertinent to
publicize these facts at this juncture.
Courtesy: Department of Government Information
Sri Lankan Doctors say they handled 300 child deliveries during the last
period of the conflict with LTTE
Sri Lankan medical professionals say they handled around 300
child delivery per month at the Cheddikulum Hospital during the last period of
war with the Tigers in 2009.
Dr.Hemantha Perera President of the Sri Lanka College of
Obstetricians & Gynecologists said that at the cessation of hostilities
internally displaced Sri Lankans were coming into temporary camps in large
numbers. The Sri Lanka College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (SLCOG),
being the apex body of professionals providing maternity care in Sri Lanka
anticipated that there would be a major need for maternity care for these
people. The SLCOG took the initiative of rallying all stakeholders towards
delivery of effective care.
He said that the health ministry had strengthened the Vavuniya
General hospital until the facilities in the Cheddikulum Hospital was
established to cater to the incoming Obstetric patients.
"We had had previous experience in providing emergency care in
disaster situations following the tsunami." Dr Perera said that all these
services were delivered to the people free of charge
A press release issued my the association says
We estimated that there would be about 3000 pregnant mothers
among these people. The Director General of Health Services (DGHS), Dr.Ajith
Mendis had already appointed a Coordinator and set up a special unit in order to
address health-related issues in these displaced Sri Lankans. On the request of
the SLCOG, the Secretary of Health and DGHS appointed a Task Force specifically
for maternity care.
As expected in a situation such as this, there were many health
issues that were recognized. Among these, maternity care required urgent
attention.
The Task Force identified the following urgent needs.
1. To register all pregnant mothers.
2. Setting up of antenatal clinics in all zones (Six zones) -
Our members visited all these clinics daily to examine the mothers who were
recognized as being in the high-risk category. The care given was of high
standard and included ultrasound scanning.
3. Setting up of an antenatal ward, a labor room and operating
theatre for cesarean section at Cheddikulum District Hospital. This was
originally a small hospital, which did not have these facilities.
4. Making available specialist and middle grade doctors trained
in obstetrics and gynaecology for round the clock service
5. Regular meetings were held with the DGHS, Coordinator of
Cheddikulum & relevant officials of Family Health Bureau, Ministry of
Health, other professional organizations and the field staff for provision of
smooth functioning of the above facilities.
6. Qualified Midwives were identified from among the displaced
people and their services were obtained.
7. All the needs of pregnant mothers including nutrition,
vitamin supplementation, transport to and from the hospitals, care of delivered
mothers and babies was arranged. An ultrasound scan was used to date the
pregnancies.
These activities were initiated and sustained for a period of
six months till the health care facilities of the war affected hospitals started
functioning. The quality of the service could be gauged by the absence of
maternal deaths during this period. We have not previously given publicity for
these facts because we considered these services as a part of professional
duties of Sri Lankans to fellow Sri Lankans. However, we thought it pertinent to
publicize these facts at this juncture.
Courtesy: Department of Government Information
period of the conflict with LTTE
Sri Lankan medical professionals say they handled around 300
child delivery per month at the Cheddikulum Hospital during the last period of
war with the Tigers in 2009.
Dr.Hemantha Perera President of the Sri Lanka College of
Obstetricians & Gynecologists said that at the cessation of hostilities
internally displaced Sri Lankans were coming into temporary camps in large
numbers. The Sri Lanka College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (SLCOG),
being the apex body of professionals providing maternity care in Sri Lanka
anticipated that there would be a major need for maternity care for these
people. The SLCOG took the initiative of rallying all stakeholders towards
delivery of effective care.
He said that the health ministry had strengthened the Vavuniya
General hospital until the facilities in the Cheddikulum Hospital was
established to cater to the incoming Obstetric patients.
"We had had previous experience in providing emergency care in
disaster situations following the tsunami." Dr Perera said that all these
services were delivered to the people free of charge
A press release issued my the association says
We estimated that there would be about 3000 pregnant mothers
among these people. The Director General of Health Services (DGHS), Dr.Ajith
Mendis had already appointed a Coordinator and set up a special unit in order to
address health-related issues in these displaced Sri Lankans. On the request of
the SLCOG, the Secretary of Health and DGHS appointed a Task Force specifically
for maternity care.
As expected in a situation such as this, there were many health
issues that were recognized. Among these, maternity care required urgent
attention.
The Task Force identified the following urgent needs.
1. To register all pregnant mothers.
2. Setting up of antenatal clinics in all zones (Six zones) -
Our members visited all these clinics daily to examine the mothers who were
recognized as being in the high-risk category. The care given was of high
standard and included ultrasound scanning.
3. Setting up of an antenatal ward, a labor room and operating
theatre for cesarean section at Cheddikulum District Hospital. This was
originally a small hospital, which did not have these facilities.
4. Making available specialist and middle grade doctors trained
in obstetrics and gynaecology for round the clock service
5. Regular meetings were held with the DGHS, Coordinator of
Cheddikulum & relevant officials of Family Health Bureau, Ministry of
Health, other professional organizations and the field staff for provision of
smooth functioning of the above facilities.
6. Qualified Midwives were identified from among the displaced
people and their services were obtained.
7. All the needs of pregnant mothers including nutrition,
vitamin supplementation, transport to and from the hospitals, care of delivered
mothers and babies was arranged. An ultrasound scan was used to date the
pregnancies.
These activities were initiated and sustained for a period of
six months till the health care facilities of the war affected hospitals started
functioning. The quality of the service could be gauged by the absence of
maternal deaths during this period. We have not previously given publicity for
these facts because we considered these services as a part of professional
duties of Sri Lankans to fellow Sri Lankans. However, we thought it pertinent to
publicize these facts at this juncture.
Courtesy: Department of Government Information
Sri Lankan Doctors say they handled 300 child deliveries during the last
period of the conflict with LTTE
Sri Lankan medical professionals say they handled around 300
child delivery per month at the Cheddikulum Hospital during the last period of
war with the Tigers in 2009.
Dr.Hemantha Perera President of the Sri Lanka College of
Obstetricians & Gynecologists said that at the cessation of hostilities
internally displaced Sri Lankans were coming into temporary camps in large
numbers. The Sri Lanka College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (SLCOG),
being the apex body of professionals providing maternity care in Sri Lanka
anticipated that there would be a major need for maternity care for these
people. The SLCOG took the initiative of rallying all stakeholders towards
delivery of effective care.
He said that the health ministry had strengthened the Vavuniya
General hospital until the facilities in the Cheddikulum Hospital was
established to cater to the incoming Obstetric patients.
"We had had previous experience in providing emergency care in
disaster situations following the tsunami." Dr Perera said that all these
services were delivered to the people free of charge
A press release issued my the association says
We estimated that there would be about 3000 pregnant mothers
among these people. The Director General of Health Services (DGHS), Dr.Ajith
Mendis had already appointed a Coordinator and set up a special unit in order to
address health-related issues in these displaced Sri Lankans. On the request of
the SLCOG, the Secretary of Health and DGHS appointed a Task Force specifically
for maternity care.
As expected in a situation such as this, there were many health
issues that were recognized. Among these, maternity care required urgent
attention.
The Task Force identified the following urgent needs.
1. To register all pregnant mothers.
2. Setting up of antenatal clinics in all zones (Six zones) -
Our members visited all these clinics daily to examine the mothers who were
recognized as being in the high-risk category. The care given was of high
standard and included ultrasound scanning.
3. Setting up of an antenatal ward, a labor room and operating
theatre for cesarean section at Cheddikulum District Hospital. This was
originally a small hospital, which did not have these facilities.
4. Making available specialist and middle grade doctors trained
in obstetrics and gynaecology for round the clock service
5. Regular meetings were held with the DGHS, Coordinator of
Cheddikulum & relevant officials of Family Health Bureau, Ministry of
Health, other professional organizations and the field staff for provision of
smooth functioning of the above facilities.
6. Qualified Midwives were identified from among the displaced
people and their services were obtained.
7. All the needs of pregnant mothers including nutrition,
vitamin supplementation, transport to and from the hospitals, care of delivered
mothers and babies was arranged. An ultrasound scan was used to date the
pregnancies.
These activities were initiated and sustained for a period of
six months till the health care facilities of the war affected hospitals started
functioning. The quality of the service could be gauged by the absence of
maternal deaths during this period. We have not previously given publicity for
these facts because we considered these services as a part of professional
duties of Sri Lankans to fellow Sri Lankans. However, we thought it pertinent to
publicize these facts at this juncture.
Courtesy: Department of Government Information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)