Many Happy Returns of the Day Prince Charles ....

It was November 14, 2013, and heir to the British Throne Prince Charles was flying into Colombo later in the day, to preside over the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Sri Lanka.

Several Heads of State and dignitaries had gathered at the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall in Colombo and were engaged in various bilateral and multilateral meetings.

The following two videos capture a reporter's question to both Willam Hague MP, First Secretary of State and the Leader of the House of Commons and to President of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa as each of them arrived for meetings.

The question was, "Today is Prince Charles' birthday. What will you say to him?"

WATCH THE VIDEO

Read how smugglers are raking up the marine eco-system around the Gulf of Mannar

Smugglers Devastate Gulf of Mannar Marine Reserve

By Malini Shankar*

A glimpse of seagrass close to the seashore of the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park, which is home to a spectrum of marine wildlife Credit:Malini Shankar/IPS Buy this picture

RAMESHWARAM, India, May 2, 2012 (IPS) - Forest officials of the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve abutting the Palk Straits between India and Sri Lanka have reported a decline in marine wildlife, as smugglers exploiting lax conservation laws in the region tank up on protected species used in traditional Chinese medicines and fine dining.

In coordination with the Indian Coast Guard, forest officials have recorded more than 200 cases of smuggling, accounting for the loss of over 13,000 kilogrammes of sea cucumbers (Holothurian scabra) and seahorses (Hippocampus species) in the last 16 months alone.

Illegal marine wildlife traders in India smuggle their catch to neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, where the red-flagged items become legal marine exports to other Southeast Asian countries due to exemptions in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

"The seahorse found in the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park is one of the five rarer species of seahorses," Shekhar Kumar Niraj, field director of the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve, informed IPS.

In 2001, India’s stringent Wildlife Protection Act listed sea cucumbers and seahorses as ‘schedule I’, thereby making forest officials legally responsible for their protection.

Around the same time as this classification came into play, the markets for traditional Chinese medicines exploded.

A fragile ecosystem

The Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park (GOMMNP), part of the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve, is an undersea reserve formed by the strip of land that once connected India to Sri Lanka. The peninsula divides the Palk Straits in the north from the Gulf of Mannar in the south.

The fragile reef ecosystem is shallow and forms the habitat for corals, crabs, clown fish, dugongs, dolphins, porpoise, prawns, parrot fish, sea cucumbers, seahorses, sea snakes, turtles, whales and a whole list of highly endangered endemic marine wildlife.

The marine diversity includes four species of shrimp, 106 species of crabs, 17 types of sea cucumbers, 466 species of molluscs, 108 species of sponges and 100 species of echinoderms.

More than 2000 species of fin fish are found in the Gulf of Mannar and seagrass is also clearly visible in the shallow sea. Prosopsis jujuba, a shrub forest species endemic to dry arid zones, "is surprisingly dominant in the mangroves and mud flats, amply justifying the protection lent to the marine national park," Sundar Kumar, the wildlife warden of the underwater reserve, told IPS.

"The hotbeds and kingpins of marine wildlife crime are in Rameshwaram, Mandapam, and Tuticorin all around the Indian coast of the GOMMNP," T. Rajendran, assistant conservator of forests for the marine reserve, told IPS.

Lose-lose deal for fisherfolk

"There is no local consumption or markets (for smuggled goods). Only the middlemen gain. These are the (people) who are connected to international crime syndicates," added Niraj. These ‘middlemen’ buy sea cucumbers from fisherfolk for about 50 dollars per kilogramme and sell them for a profit of 600 percent, at 307 dollars per kilogramme.

"Sea cucumbers have ecologically significant roles in scavenging coasts and seabeds, which in turn helps other species like corals and seagrass to flourish and propagate," Niraj explained.

"Only owners of trawler fishing boats indulge in poaching sea cucumbers, which is a double whammy for us traditional fishermen; not only is the catch depleting, but fuel prices are increasing. The additional burden of illegal poaching of marine wildlife by trawler fishermen make us suspect in the eyes of the enforcement agencies," lamented K. David, a traditional fisherman in Rameshwaram.

Field director Niraj disputes the fact that trawler fisherfolk are the only smugglers involved in this rackets, pointing to statistics of recent raids that show traditional (Dinghy) fishermen also indulging in the smuggling of sea cucumbers and seahorses.

David is convinced that traditional fishing will come to an end when his generation is "dead and gone", since youngsters like 10-year-old Vishal Selvan and 11-year-old Alan want to become merchant navy captains and Indian Administrative Service officers respectively.

In order to keep traditional fishermen from engaging with smugglers out of economic desperation, employment schemes have been put in place to guarantee the livelihoods of various fisherfolk, in the face of depleting fish stocks.

"The alternative livelihood initiatives carried out by the United Nations Development Programme-Global Environmental Facility (UNDP-GEF) through the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve Trust (GoMBRT) include Palmyra mat weaving and thatch making, clown fish and other ornamental fish fattening, goat rearing, jasmine cultivation, betel leaf cultivation, salt-fish making and plaster of Paris for doll-making," V. Deepak Samuel, programme specialist at the energy and environment unit of the UNDP-GEF (GoMBRT), told IPS.

Unchecked crime

"We are as yet unable to trace the route of smuggled goods and links beyond Sri Lanka to markets in the Far East, primarily because once the goods arrive in Sri Lanka they become legal exports, blocking our investigations further," explained a wildlife crime inspector, speaking under condition of anonymity out of fear for his safety.

Patrolling the sea is all the more challenging given enforcement agencies’ meagre logistical capacity.

Led by Rajendran, the entire patrol operation includes four range forest officers, 22 foresters, 11 guards, two watchers and 33 anti-poaching camp watchers who share six jeeps, six wireless sets, two base stations, six anti-poaching camps, eight mechanised patrol boats and three speed boats between them – to patrol an area of 10,500 square kilometres or 18,900 nautical miles.

They lack night vision lamps and financial incentives. They are no match for the 25,000 well equipped trawlers that fish illegally across the whole Marine Biosphere Reserve every day.

Still, the greatest challenge is not out on the water.

"Opposition to protection of marine wildlife (and) fishes comes from even official establishments like the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, the Marine Products Export Development Authority and the National Institute of Oceanography – all in the name of livelihoods," Niraj said.

"Growing numbers of anthropologists propagate illusions glossing over the likely consequences that would emerge should we lose the remaining biodiversity… They quote the Convention on Biological Diversity where sustainability, right to access and benefits sharing are the guiding principles. However, sustainability that applies to economic principles may not exactly apply to ecology because of biological principles that are very different," Niraj explained.

Poaching of sea cucumbers even in the seas around the Andaman Nicobar Islands is so rampant that natives report they hardly sight sea cucumbers anymore.

*Malini Shankar is a wildlife photojournalist and filmmaker based in Bangalore.

(END)

(Courtesy: IPS News)

India shoots itself in the foot with vote against Sri Lanka in Geneva

The recent vote on Sri Lanka at the nineteenth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) saw India isolate itself and make a hurried statement that appeared to be an apology for its foreign policy.

The US sponsored resolution was passed with 24 countries voting for, 15 voting against and 8 abstentions. India voted with the US in support of the resolution.

India a pioneer of of non-alignment

India's Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru with other world leaders who pioneered the non-aligned movement (Photo courtsey: www.sukarnoyears.com)

It was in the 1950s that India’s then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru promoted the policy of non-alignment. The policy was the outcome of the increasing polarisation of the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. In fact, the term non-alignment was coined by Nehru in a speech in Colombo in 1954.

Since its inception and the first meeting of the Heads of State of the non-aligned countries in 1961 India has strongly argued for a policy of non-alignment even in the post-cold-war era.

Therefore, many not just in Sri Lanka but around the world were surprised, when Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh recently told the Indian Parliament that India was likely to vote against Sri Lanka and in favour of the US sponsored resolution which sought to force Sri Lanka to act according to the dictates of the United States and other powerful western countries that dominate the United Nations system to force Sri Lanka to act on the recommendations of the indigenously implemented mechanism of the ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’.

India’s stand in Geneva is all the more intriguing since it was only on February 28 that India launched a report written under the auspices of both the National Defence College and the Centre for Policy Research outlining a strategy for non-alignment in the 21^st century.

India had ball-by-ball description of progress of operation against LTTE

Sri Lanka's Minister Basil Rajapaksa and India's Pranab Mukerjee at a meeting on bilateral matters (Photo courtesy: www.amila-kumanayake.blogspot.com)

The vote naturally angered Sri Lanka. India despite its history of having trained and armed the LTTE on its soil had been an ally over the past several years. Sri Lanka and India had stood together over the final years of the conflict with consultations at the highest levels as frequently as weekly at certain stages. It was not uncommon for senior ministers of the Sri Lanka government to fly to New Delhi with only a day’s notice to brief the Indian government on the progress on the ground. Similarly Indian Ministers and senior officials would fly over to Colombo and meet even President Mahinda Rajapaksa even if he was away in Kandy. The leaders would also converse regularly on the telephone.

Vote against Sri Lanka has angered Indians

India’s volte-face also drew much flak from within the country. Many including well-known journalists took to twitter condemning the Indian government for its stance and warning of the dangers ahead. Kanchan Gupta, Writer, Journalist and Associate Editor of The Pioneer was one such who used twitter to drive home a strong message. On March 19, he tweeted, “A vote against Sri Lanka at UNHRC is, ultimately, a vote against India's national interest. Tragic to see Indians pushing for it.”

He was even more forceful in a column titled, ‘Helping ‘realise’ Tamil Eelam’, where he said,

“It’s akin to the Government of India endorsing separatism in Jammu & Kashmir and standing by those individuals and organisations in Pakistan who fuel and promote this separatism. If that is unacceptable to us, then there is no reason why we should not find Karunanidhi’s ‘unrealised dream’ and Manmohan Singh abusing his executive authority to help realise that dream odious and objectionable.”

Another of @KanchanGupta’s tweets gave a hint of what has been india’s long-standing policy in dealing with Sri Lanka. “@dhume01 I think it was Bandung. Nehru summoned Bandaranaike, asked him to show his speech, set it aside and told him he would redraft it.”

It was India’s Big Brother policy; India would do as it wanted with small Sri Lanka.

Having nurtured the LTTE’s armed terrorism India was sadly jolted from its complacency when the monster struck with ferocious intensity killing former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi with a human bomb. India began to change its policy towards Sri Lanka but not before helping nurture the seed of separatism in Tamilnadu, no doubt to the delight of western nations who replaced colonial authoritarianism with democracy. Democracy as we have seen is a more pliable mechanism that western nations have used to change regimes at will and exploit the resources that rightfully belong to the citizens of that country.

 Sri Lanka not amused by India’s alignment with US

Sri Lanka was not amused with India’s stand at the UNHRC. President Mahinda Rajapakse has said human rights are a part of Sri Lankan history and that Sri Lankans have been protecting human rights since the introduction of Buddhism to the country. External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris in a statement following the vote said,

“It is a matter of great satisfaction to us that 15 countries voted with Sri Lanka, despite the intensity of pressure, in a variety of forms, exerted on them all.  We convey to them our warm thanks and deep appreciation.

We also thank sincerely the 8 countries which, by abstaining, declined to support the Resolution.

With 15 countries voting with Sri Lanka, and 8 countries abstaining, the final result was that 23 countries, out of a total of 47 members of the Human Rights Council, did not support the Resolution, while 24 supported it. The margin was as narrow as this.”

The statement added,

“This is a highly selective and arbitrary process not governed by objective norms or criteria of any kind.  The implications of this were not lost on many countries.

As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, our policy in respect of all matters will continue to be guided by the vital interests and wellbeing of the people of our country.  It hardly requires emphasis that this cannot yield place to any other consideration.”

That was obviously why Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought to placate Sri Lanka and wrote a letter to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The resolution united Sri Lankans not only within the country but outside as well in their outrage against the foreign interference. Singh’s placatory letter is unlikely to impress the island’s 20 million inhabitants who have begun to enjoy the benefits of peace. Three decades of bitter conflict cannot easily be erased from memory and any attempt to drive a wedge in the country’s social fabric under the pretext of safeguarding human rights is unlikely to succeed. Many would however admit to the necessity for improvements in law and order; an endeavour already underway that needs acceleration.

 Vote scares small countries

India stood out as the only country in Asia to have voted against Sri Lanka. The implications are enormous. It has effectively abrogated its role as the superpower in South Asia. By aligning itself with the west India has alienated itself and departed from the long-held policy of non-alignment. In the future, neighbors and small countries will both step warily around India unless and until it is seen to demonstrate a firm foreign policy that balances national interests with regional and global realities. Smaller countries in the Indian Ocean region which looked up to India would in particular need to be reassured that India respects the principles of sovereignty and security of countries. These assurances would have to be demonstrated practically at the bilateral and multi-lateral levels and not be limited only to pious pronouncements.

Has India again encouraged separatism in Sri Lanka?

The dangers are even greater. Sri Lanka has warned India that the vote in Geneva could be used as a precedent to bring a similar resolution on Kashmir. It was more than conjecture that entities in western countries if not the countries themselves aided the LTTE and the call for a separate state in Sri Lanka. The efforts of western nations to save LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran appear to reinforce the view that western countries wished to encourage a separate state in Sri Lanka.

Democracy as a tool for ‘regime change’

Recent events in India tend to give more perspective on the rationale for such a policy. However, to understand the implications for India and the region, it is necessary to briefly view the reasons for the end of the ‘cold war’ and events in its aftermath. The cold war ended only with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and its allies such as Yugoslavia. Gradually western capitalism has eroded the social fabric in these countries replacing the authoritarian communist governments with ones where power resides with a wealthy elite and corruption is rampant.

More recently, Iraq was invaded under the protection of UN resolutions on the basis the country possessed weapons of mass destruction, a claim that has since been disproved. The ‘Arab Spring’ began in Tunisia where despite the optimism many are still frustrated well over a year after the revolution. Egypt which was stable despite the lack of democracy is now in continuous turmoil with religious intolerance a major issue. Libya is still an unknown melting pot. More recently a coup was staged in Mali. Interestingly, one of the coup leaders has said that he received training from the US Marines and Intelligence. Some of these events have had direct intervention by western countries led by the US or NATO or both under the protective umbrella of UN resolutions. In many of the ‘Arab Spring’ revolts speculation has been rife that western countries have been catalysing democracy by encouraging, training and even arming ‘dissidents’. Critics including Russia have accused the west of meddling in Syria.

In this context it is interesting to note US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks at the opening of the Anna Centenary Library in Chennai in July 2011. She said, “President Obama made a state visit to India last year. I have been here twice in the last two years. And why, one might ask? Why are we coming to India so often and welcoming Indian officials to Washington as well? It’s because we understand that much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia, and that much of the future of Asia will be shaped by decisions not only of the Indian Government in New Delhi, but of governments across India, and perhaps, most importantly, by the 1.3 billion people who live in this country.”

India part of US Global Strategy

President Barack Obama of the United States and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in a warm embrace. (Photo courtesy: www.rediff.com)

 India as the world’s largest democracy is already a global superpower. Unlike China, its Asian neighbour which compares easily and even exceeds on population and land mass, India has 28 democratically elected state governments with defined state borders. India’s more than one billion population is a ready market for goods whether from the west or the east. During a time of economic recession the west is undoubtedly keen to harness this great resource.

Addressing the US – India Strategic Dialogue Secretary Clinton said, “Each of our countries can do more to reduce barriers, open our markets, and find new opportunities for economic partnership.  Taking these steps is in our mutual interest.  We can improve millions of lives and increase both of our nations’ economic competitiveness.”

Speaking at the opening of the Anna Centenary Library in Chennai, she went on to stress the global superpower’s reliance on India as a market. “Well, speaking for the United States, I can tell you that we are, in fact, betting on India’s future. We are betting that the opening of India’s markets to the world will produce a more prosperous India and a more prosperous South Asia. It will also spill over into Central Asia and beyond into the Asia Pacific region.”

“There is no better place to discuss India’s leadership in the region to its east than here in Chennai. In this port city, looking out at the Bay of Bengal and beyond to the nations of East and Southeast Asia, we are easily reminded of India’s historic role in the wider region.” Clinton used the opportunity to strike a chord with Tamilnadu’s population sympathetic to their brethren in Sri Lanka, “Here in Chennai, we can see how much a society can achieve when all citizens fully are participating in the political and economic life of their country. Every citizen of Sri Lanka deserves the same hope and opportunity for a better future,” she said to applause from the audience in Chennai.

Scope of Tamil Separatism

Map showing Tamilnadu in South India and proposed state of Tamil Eelam in the north and east of Sri Lanka (Courtesy: www.en.wikipedia.org)

A separate state in Sri Lanka as envisaged by the LTTE and its supporters would have afforded the western countries unfettered access to the coveted Trincomalee port – the world’s largest natural harbour as well as two-thirds of the country’s coastline together with some of the most valuable natural resources. More importantly it would have hastened the break-up of India with each of the states becoming an independent country. It is quite likely that this ‘Indian Spring’ would have begun in Tamilnadu where even now leading politicians are promoting a separate state in Sri Lanka. Tamil nationalism in India has been discussed elsewhere in greater detail by Dr. Dayan Jayatillleka. The idea is well illustrated in the map on the Facebook page titled, Tamil nadu separatism.

A separate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka and another in Tamilnadu would have opened a contiguous area of sea that would have been open for the west to exploit. Today the sea-routes between east and west pass very close to the coast across Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. Western countries could also be eyeing Sri Lanka as a potential spacecraft launch pad being very close to the equator and having sufficient sea area in the event of an aborted flight or for the jettisoning of used stages of rockets. 

Pain of Partition a reason for India to remain united

India's partition was a traumatic experience for both Indians and Pakistanis (Photo courtesy: www.johnbatchelorshow.com)

A united India has so far not shown itself as a military threat to any other country. Any break will be more painful than the partition of India when even desks and chairs were reported to have been broken into a third and shipped to Pakistan. (This was reported in a detailed report in the Readers’ Digest many years ago.) It would prove to be a lucrative market for a short period till conflicts between states begin to create huge complications as landlocked states depend on access through others. India needs to remain united both for its own and for global stability.

By isolating itself from other countries that wished away any assault on their sovereignty, India has shot itself in the foot. On an occasion when even strong allies of the United States saw the dangers and decided to vote against the resolution, India has not only hurt Sri Lanka, its closest neighbour with whom it shares even the Ramayana, but left itself wide open and vulnerable. END.

(Follow the writer on twitter: @Panhinda)

UN Refused to Cooperate in Preparing Facilities to Receive 250,000 IDPs in 2009

A Sri Lanka Government official charged that UN agencies, INGOs and NGOs had refused to cooperate in preparing facilities to receive 250,000 IDPs in Vavuniya at the end of the conflict.

A batch of LTTE cadres rehabilitated by the Sri Lanka Government await their reintegration to society at the Vavuniya Town Hall, April 2011. (Photo: Ranjit J. Perera)

Vavuniya Government Agent, Mrs. P.S.M. Charles told this writer in an exclusive interview last year, that the government decided to proceed to prepare the infrastructure to receive at least 250,000 people (at the Menik Farm) after the UN agencies, INGOs and NGOs had a heated argument with the GA and refused to cooperate. She also said that the government around the same time sent food and essential items for 400,000 people knowing very well that it was an over-estimation, on the basis that even the LTTE cadres were citizens of Sri Lanka.

She also spoke of how the government on its own organised a food convoy to LTTE held areas following a delay in the WFP getting security clearance from its own security advisors. 

Listen to extracts of the interview held at the Vavuniya GA’s Office on April 25th 2011.

(The interview was conducted as part of a documentation process and has not been published before. The decision to publish extracts was made in fairness to the large number of people who value the new found freedom in Sri Lanka and yet are helpless in the face of the heavy international media barrage in view of the US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka due to be tabled at the 19th Session of the UNHRC.)

Ban Ki-moon Should Reject the Report of the Panel on Sri Lanka and Restore Confidence in the UN

An analysis of notices published by the UN Panel of Experts (POE) calling for submissions and email correspondence this writer has had with the Panel show that the Panel has effectively denied the citizens of Sri Lanka an opportunity to be heard by the Panel.

The POE has surreptitiously given more time for detractors of the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) by publishing on scribd.com a notice calling for submissions which few were aware of.  Even an emailed reply to those who enquired less than two weeks before the end December 2010 deadline, did not mention the impending deadline although it had been extended for reasons best known to the POE.

They have in this manner systematically favoured the receipt of submissions against the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL).

Compelling evidence demands that the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon should officially reject the Report of the Panel of Experts (POE) on Sri Lanka for not adhering to accepted norms of objectivity, transparency and accountability.

Sri Lankans Denied Opportunity to Make Submissions

It was in 1952 that the UN began its work in Sri Lanka, three years before the country was formally admitted as a member state of the world body. Despite having been in the country for sixty years, the UN did not see it fit to publish in the local media, its call for submissions. An enquiry directed to the UN offices in Sri Lanka by this writer via their website asking whether the UN in Sri Lanka was involved in publishing any notices in the local media on behalf of the POE calling for submissions from Sri Lankans, remains unanswered.

According to a recent report by Nielsen Sri Lanka, internet users in Sri Lanka represent only 14 percent of the population. Despite huge advances in recent years, the use of traditional media is a must for effective mass communications in Sri Lanka.

The UN has thus effectively denied the citizens of Sri Lanka the opportunity to be heard before the Panel. Yet, the recommendations have been recycled by interested parties clothing the so-called “credible allegations” in a veneer of respectability, to the point of becoming indictments against the GOSL. These allegations are made without a shred of evidence and no recourse to the legal system of Sri Lanka.

Panel Report Fails on Accountability

The UN Panel of Experts (POE) Report on Sri Lanka should have been a clear-cut document that embodied facts with substantiating evidence based on international norms and best practices and some clear recommendations based on its terms of reference, for the UN Secretary General to act upon. Instead, it has stirred controversy and been widely condemned in Sri Lanka, by the very people whom it was intended to benefit.

That this report could have far reaching implications for Sri Lanka need hardly be said. The wider implication however, is that it could prove a precedent for all member countries of the United Nations.

That precisely is the reason that the UN Panel of Experts Report on Sri Lanka should be subject to exacting standards of accountability; and it is there that it fails.

The Panel has failed to adopt a methodology by which they could arrive at impartial conclusions and has created a serious doubt as to whether it was pursuing an agenda designed to indict Sri Lanka for ‘war crimes’.

Flaws show up in Email Response

It was on October 18, 2010 that the POE invited submissions with a deadline of December 15, 2010. However, this notice was not published on the UN website. Having found the notice posted on Scribd.com via a search on the internet, this writer sent an email on October 21, 2010 seeking further information. Since no reply was received, a reminder was sent to the POE on November 21, 2010.

On December 18, 2010 the following reply was received:

Dear Sir, Madam,

Thank you for writing to the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts. The Panel appreciates the time you have taken to your share your contribution with it.

The Panel is unable to reply to each individual given the volume of messages received.

The responses to a number of frequently asked questions are thus set out below.

Q.: Can I write in Sinhala or Tamil?

A.: Yes, though English, being the Panel's working language, is preferred. 

Q.: Is my submission confidential?

A.: Yes, your submission will be treated as confidential. Neither your name nor identifying particulars will be specified in the Panel's report.

Q.: When will the Panel make its report?

A.: The Panel anticipates submitting its report in January 2011.

Q.: Will the Panel's report be made public?

A.: The report is to the United Nations Secretary-General. He will decide whether to make the report public.

Q.: Can I speak to the Panel in person?

A.: The Panel has a limited time for its work and has therefore chosen to request contributions in the written form detailed in the notice.

Q.: Can I make multiple submissions?

A.: You are requested to raise all issues you wish to raise within the one, single submission. 

Q:  Can I send my submission in hard copy to a physical address?

A.: Yes. You may send materials to the following address within the timeframe set out in the notice:

  

  Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka

  UN Secretariat (Library Building, L-0330 L)

  New York, NY 10017

  United States of America 

Q:  Can I submit non-written materials, such as photographs and film clips?

A.:  Yes. Please enclose such materials as attachments to your email or mail them to the above address.

Thank you again for taking this opportunity to be in contact with the Panel.

Yours sincerely,

Secretariat of the Panel of Experts

Reluctance to Mention Deadline

Significantly, the POE did not mention the new deadline in the reply. The change of deadline was reflected in an amended notice published on scribd.com which was sourced through an internet search. It is this amended notice that has since been posted on the UN website where the filename identifies it as revision 1. (Note the revised filename.)

A December 20, 2010 Inner City Press report stated:

In the run up to the initial December 15 deadline, Inner City Press asked Haq and his office about bounced e-mails and Federal Express overnight packages of evidence which the Panel refused or could not receive. Haq said that he thought an extension would be announced -- but then did not announce one.

On December 20, having received more complaints about packages refused by the Panel, Inner City Press again asked Haq about the projected extension. Staring down at note, Haq said it is extended to the end of the year. (Emphasis mine.)

Lack of Transparency

An obvious lack of transparency on the part of the UN can be observed. That this writer received a reply in December just two weeks prior to the deadline which was not mentioned in the mail, and nearly two months after the initial enquiry, suggests deliberate action on the part of the UN POE. The contents of the report suggest that the Panel was selective in its collection of submissions and wished to deny submissions from affected persons in Sri Lanka.

For a clearer understanding of the methodology employed by the Panel, the UNSG should identify the dates on which the various announcements were officially made on the UN website and the dates on which the various submissions were made to the Panel. It should be quite revealing.

The results of a flawed methodology should not be used to tarnish the reputation or cause harm to Sri Lanka as a member state of the United Nations.

Analyses of the POE Report by an Eminent Sri Lankan

Godfrey Gunatilleke, Chairman Emeritus and Senior Advisor of the Marga Institute (a leading development studies think-tank in Sri Lanka) has aptly deconstructed the UN POE Report and its criticisms into three key areas that warrant analysis.

Firstly, although the Panelists must have impeccable credentials, Gunatilleke has shown how they do not qualify. As he points out, all three of them have either personally held or belonged to organisations which held, views critical of the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) thus making them less likely to come to objective or impartial conclusions with regard to the GOSL. As Gunatlilleke outlines further:

“One set of responses to the report which seeks to reject it outright deals with issues concerning the appointment and status of the panel, the mandate given to the Panel and the way the Panel has interpreted it, the composition of the Panel and the capacity of the panel to arrive at fair and impartial conclusions particularly regarding the actions of the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) and the Government of Sri Lanka (G0SL).  Many of these criticisms question the bona fides of the initiative taken by the UNSG.

A second category of responses deal with more substantive issues relating to the central part of the report – the issues of accountability and the case made against the government in particular. These issues relate to the methodology the panel has adopted, its transparency, the sources it has been able to access, its account of the last stages of the war based on these sources, the framework of accountability it has adopted and the conclusions it reaches. 

A  third  category  focuses  on  the  parts  of  the  report  which  deal  directly  with  the  process  of domestic accountability and the Panel’s recommendation for improving that process.”

Panel Has Exceeded the Mandate

In para 51 of the Report the Panel states:

“While the Panel’s mandate precludes fact-finding or investigation, the Panel believed it essential to assess whether the allegations that are in the public domain are sufficiently credible to warrant further investigations. Determining the scope and nature of these allegations allows the Panel to properly frame the accountability issues, which arise from them. The Panel has determined an allegation to be credible if there is a reasonable basis to believe that the underlying act or event occurred. This standard used by the Panel  - that of a reasonable basis to believe that the underlying act or event occurred – gives rise to a responsibility under domestic and international law for the State or other actors to respond.” (Emphasis mine.)

The Panel has proceeded to do exactly what it was specifically excluded from doing; fact-finding or investigation. It has also proceeded to be the prosecutor, judge and the jury at the same time, while going way beyond its mandate by freely interpreting the legal responsibilities of a member country of the United Nations and towards it (interestingly) by unnamed actors.

Critical Assessment by Sri Lanka’s Business Community

The recently released Sri Lanka Private Sector Assessment of the Panel of Experts’ Advisory Report to the UN Secretary General has also criticized the manner in which the Panel has determined allegations to be ‘credible’.

“The  POE  claims  that  it  treated  an  allegation  as  credible  only  when  the information  was  “based  on  primary  sources  that  the  Panel  deemed  relevant  and trustworthy”.  Contrary to this claim, which suggests that the allegations  were  substantiated  by  victims  and  witnesses  present  on  the  ground,  the  POE seems to have relied exclusively on uncorroborated open sources for some of its findings.”

“While it is noted that at this juncture there is no expectation to have the exact identities of the  witnesses interviewed disclosed, necessity  for confidentiality  does  not  preclude  the  POE  from  identifying  the  categories  of the witnesses so interviewed, such as victims, members of the Sri Lanka Army (SLA),  Government  officials,  members  of  the  NGOs/INGOs, journalists  etc.” (Emphasis mine.)

Contradictory Positions on Confidentiality

In comments on the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) the Panel Report states at para 312:

The history of previous Commissions of Inquiry in Sri Lanka shows a pattern of non-disclosure of findings and recommendations undermining public confidence in the process, dramatically reducing the practical impact of the work undertaken and possibilities for follow-up and making it impossible to assess whether the work of that commission responded to its mandate. (Emphasis mine.)

Could this be a statement about Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission by an eminent Panel of the august body? One appointed by the Secretary General himself to advise him on accountability in Sri Lanka? Or, could it be that they were thinking of themselves and substituted the LLRC in a moment of amnesia? Yes, have they forgotten what they’ve written elsewhere in their report that their own records are subject to 20-years of secrecy?

As the Sri Lanka Private Sector Assessment notes:

“Further the POE has classified “nearly all of the Panel’s substantive records as strictly confidential.” Therefore, “nearly all” of the  material  purportedly supporting the POE’s conclusions will remain confidential at least for the next twenty  years.  While  the  necessity  for  such  extensive  confidentiality  for sources providing information to support a private advisory to the UNSG can be appreciated, since the advisory has been released into the public domain by the  UNSG, “natural  justice” necessitates  the sources  or at the very least the nature/character of those sources to be revealed to the public.” (Emphasis mine.)

UN Needs to Reestablish Public Confidence in its Ability to Carry Forward the Objectives Specified in the Charter

The UN is the only body of its kind and its General Assembly is the only forum where countries discuss, debate and seek consensus as a body, on matters that affect human beings in an increasingly globalized world. Any subversion of the powers of the General Assembly by individual countries – however powerful they may be – or by any of the myriad agencies of the UN would only create chaos.

Institutions which under the guise of championing human rights seek to advance vested interests and have observer status at the UN should be periodically reviewed to ensure that the UN is not made a vehicle for the interests of a powerful few.

The flawed manner in which the Panel has sought to discharge its mandate makes it imperative that the UN Secretary General should officially reject the Report of the Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka and withdraw same from the UN’s presence in the public domain so that Sri Lankans, as indeed the world population, can restore their confidence in the United Nations as presently constituted, as a body capable of upholding the Charter. END.

Wikileaks Cable: US tried to delay IMF assistance to Sri Lanka

The United States delivered a demarche to the Government of Canada seeking to delay the IMF Standby Arrangement for Sri Lanka according to an unclassified diplomatic cable published by whistleblower website, Wikileaks.

The demarche by way of a telegram was delivered to James Haley, General Director for International Trade and Finance of the Canadian government’s Department of Finance on April 29, 2009 by the US Embassy in Ottawa according to the cable.

‘Haley had no immediate response, but stated that he would consult within Finance Canada and get back to us with a formal position,” the cable added.