Connect with us

Opinion

US re-joining UNHRC: American attitude towards terrorism and human rights

Published

on

‘The US returns to UNHRC, ahead of 46th session’ was a leading news item in The Island of 10.02.2021.

The US of A does what it needs to do, to serve its cause as best as possible, at any given time.

When being with the UNHRC was not convenient, it left the organization. The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, did not mince her words, announcing the decision, calling the council a “hypocritical and self-serving organisation”. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44552304 . Now the time has come for the US of A to rejoin the UNHRC to propagate its international agenda!

It would be worthwhile at this juncture for us to remind ourselves of how the US of A behaves when it comes to terrorism and human rights.

The response of the US of A to the terrorist bombing of the Twin Towers in 2001 was the PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty – uniting and strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. It is well documented that multiple violations of human rights such as water boarding, physical torture, sexual abuse, to name a few, have been committed by US troops against suspects of terrorism (Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (https://enwikipediaorg/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse ). Under the PATRIOT act, all these violations were deemed ‘acceptable’. For example, The Geneva Convention prohibits prisoners’ rights being abused. However, with the use of the PATRIOT act, the term prisoner was not used. Prisoners were referred to as ‘enemy combatants’ (Enemy combatants. https://wwwhumanrightsfirstorg/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Enemy%20Combatantspdf ). Therefore the Geneva Convention rules did not apply. The ‘enemy combatants’ were ‘tortured’, kept in custody indeterminately without been given legal representation, the hearing of their cases was postponed indefinitely etc…. Furthermore, when these enemy combatants, who were imprisoned indeterminately, committed suicide out of sheer desperation their deaths were not investigated as suicides in custody but were called ‘manipulative self-injurious behaviour’ (Ratner M. America’s Disappreared Detainees, Secret Imprisonment and the ‘War on Terror’) and as an ‘act of asymmetric warfare’ committed against America. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/18/usa.guantanamo.

The other legal manipulation that the US of A employed was to do with sovereignty – the deniability of its actions as a sovereign country. For example, if one takes the Guantanamo Bay Naval Camp, one of the sites where abuse of ‘prisoners’took place, the camp was not based on American soil. Therefore on the one hand, the US of A proclaimed that none of these so called atrocities carried out against ‘enemy combatants’ was on American soil where the sovereignty, rules and regulations of the country apply; therefore no American laws as such were broken. At the same time since these ‘atrocities’ were not carried out on American soil, the normal rules and regulations of the US of A did not apply either. A win win situation whatever way you looked at it!

It is because of this ‘clever legal manipulations’ that at no point during this period were George W. Bush (President), Donald Rumsfeld (Defence Secretary), George Tenet (CIA director), John Ashcroft (Attorney General)- all whom were well aware of what was happening – were ever asked to account for these atrocities that were being carried out (https://wwwhrworg/report/2011/07/12/getting-away-torture/bush-administration-and-mistreatment-detainees).

As to the US of A approach to human rights; all one has to do, is to look at the ‘birth’ of the US of A. The declaration of Independence in its second paragraph states that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This was at a time when slavery still flourished in America. Freedom for the slaves did not matter. There were no qualms in the signing of the declaration of independence with 41 out of the 56 who signed the declaration of independence owning slaves! (Slave owners among those who signed the declration of independence. http://wwwmrheintzcom/how-many-signers-of-the-declaration-of-independence-owned-slaveshtml.) So how was the reality of these “self- evident truths” resolved? The answer lies in the wording in the final paragraph where the newborn US of A state their premise of separation – “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;”

Very elegant. For everyone knows that, what gives context to a land is its occupants and one cannot constitute free and independent states from slaves that are neither free nor independent. Therefore this issue of freedom, independence, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the intentions of the declaration, do not apply to slaves; just the free men who represent the US of A.

The UNHRC should be ashamed to take guidance from such a nation. I would like to ask the Tamil diaspora and our own Tamil politicians who are supposed to represent the rights of the Tamil people in this country, by standing with the UNHRC and the US of A on this matter, are you acknowledging that this is the kind of justice you seek?

 

Dr. Sumedha S. Amarasekara



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

What is wrong with Sri Lanka?

Published

on

By Dr Laksiri Fernando

It is not the country per se, but the politicians and the people who are wrong. While politicians should take 70 percent responsibility, the people also should take 30 percent. It is true that these wrongs on the part of the politicians or the people are not limited to Sri Lanka. Even in a country like Australia where I now live, there are intermittent corruption, crime, gender abuse, killing, and misguided politics. However, the difference is extremely vast. Sri Lanka’s wrongs are perhaps 50 times higher than a country like Australia.

One may pinpoint this to the economic difference or development. There is some truth in it. However, the whole truth is not that. It is rooted in the political culture and social culture in general. That is one reason why Sri Lanka was not being able to develop after independence like Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, etc. India also has come to the forefront of development today. Sri Lanka became caught up in a vicious cycle where political culture prevented development, while underdevelopment influenced the political culture.

What is this political culture? It is mainly renovated feudalism with family at the core of politics that dominates the political culture. It is also the same in social culture, families dominating business, religion, entertainment, and the media. Only female members are set apart. It is in a way natural for members of a family to follow their fathers, brothers, or other close members. Or it can happen the other way around, fathers or uncles helping and promoting their siblings.

Even in America or the UK, this could be seen. The Kennedy family promoted members into politics. However, in Sri Lanka this is overwhelming, some families completely dominating politics and social arena. While the Rajapaksas are the most prominent example with abhorrent practices, the Bandaranaikes, the Senanayakes and the Jayewardenes (Ranil Wickremesinghe with links) were also playing the same game. In Australia, I have not come across this process. When John Howard was the Prime Minister, his brother Bob Howard continued to serve as an academic at the University of Sydney whom I used to meet often.

In 1995, I decided to come back to Sri Lanka to serve the country. I applied and got the appointment as the Director of the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI) through a competitive interview. It was a great institute with many capabilities and the people working there were quite flexible and committed. However, when it came to filling vacancies and expanding the staff for new tasks, I came across political influences and pressures.

I managed to overcome them luckily as the SLFI came under the purview of Chandrika Kumaratunga as the President and as she did not make any interference at least in my case. However, I resigned and came back to Australia within six months as the situation was unbearable. People who tried to influence me were either top ministers or bureaucrats.

Again, when I finally came back in 1997, I first joined the University of Colombo before undertaking any other appointments. By that time, I had fairly learned how to overcome political influence. The university system was fairly reasonable (not completely) and on that basis it was possible for me to follow my impartial principles. However, there was at least one instance where a former friend of mine tried to blame me publicly, claiming that I myself asked for favours! It was heartrending.

Sri Lanka’s public service is large and widespread. There are around 1.5 million people working in its various institutions, departments, and branches. Although there is the Public Service Commission which is supposed to be independent, even in its appointments political and other influences are paramount. The most discriminated people in this service are Tamils, Muslims, and Women. Although there are over 15 percent of Tamils in the population, their presence in the public service is less than 10 percent. Apart from discrimination on the reason of ethnicity and gender, there are discriminations on the basis of caste, religion and region. The dissolution of Provincial Councils since October 2019 has enlarged these discriminations overwhelmingly.

It is mistakenly claimed that the ‘large state sector’ is the primary defect of Sri Lanka’s economy. It is not the size of the sector that has mattered but its inefficiency, incapacity, unproductivity, and sometimes duplication. In Australia, out of the total workforce, 20 percent are in the state sector. But it is sufficiently productive and provides necessary services even to private enterprises. In Sri Lanka, if we count 12 million as the workforce (adult population 14 million), the state sector comprises only around 12 percent.

The state sector undoubtedly should be restructured, and the workforces should be retrained or even dismissed. There is no point in keeping people like Sirimanna Mahattaya in the public service if we take an example from the teledrama, Kolam Kuttama (Funny Couple)! Even privatising certain (loss-making) state enterprises is in order. However, there are certain sectors and services that the state should hold on to. Education and Health are the most priory sectors among others, depending on national dialogues. It could allow the private sector to participate, but the state should not give up its primary responsibilities.

There can be other strategic sectors where the private sector could be allowed like the ports, airports, airlines, electricity, gas, oil, and even water, but the state should not give up its responsibilities completely. Public-Private partnership can be a model in certain areas in this respect.

The stagnation of the education sector has been a primary problem area in Sri Lanka now for a long time. This applies both to school education and university education alike. In the case of university education there have been some curricula and teaching methodology changes but those are not up to modern and current needs.

We still get a huge number of Arts students while the country’s need is in the direction of Science, Technology, Medicine, Nursing and Business Management. Those who come from the Arts streams in schools, if it is not possible to change in the short run, should be able to move to scientific areas, if capable. In Australia, there is no prohibition of changing the stream if the students show high capability in whatever area that they qualify in. School education should be totally reformed with emphasis on scientific and international knowledge.

The discarding of English education (since 1956), in my opinion, has been the major mistake that the country has committed in degrading the educational system, the economy, and the country’s international profile. In recent times young generations are trying to overcome these barriers through private education, tuition, and social media. However, this is mostly limited to the well to do. English should not be considered as a superior or imperial language, but a practical and international language.

While this short article, with word limits, confine to only few areas of ‘wrongs’ that Sri Lanka is committing, a possible conclusion is to call for an overall change in the political and economic system in the country. Those political leaders and parties responsible for the country’s present political and economic crisis should be completely ousted.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Plan to transform country into an export economy

Published

on

Dear Mr. President,

A Presidential Media Division statement, titled “Country set for rapid transformation into an export economy” quoted remarks made by you at the inauguration ceremony of a historic temple in Kegalle.

As a caring citizen I said, “three cheers”, happily thinking that at last, the country was on the correct governance path focusing on the creation of new strategic leadership options and policy changes to encourage present and new investors to produce tradable goods and engage in external services. I was delighted that the statement began with a reference that Sri Lanka can no longer continue to rely on borrowings (presumably external?) to address the imbalance between imports and exports, which if pursued will inevitably lead to another economic crisis within a decade.

As I read the rest of the statement, I noted that your plan for achieving such a transformation by holding discussions with the World Bank, ADB and the IMF to initiate a programme and passing two new laws in April. The only other reference even as a vague statement was in relation to implementing an agricultural modernisation programme, where you anticipated results only after 6-7 years. Are you planning in addition to leverage the National Trade Facilitation Committee (NTFC) and its Secretariat as a part of your implementation strategy[ii] ?

I am sure that many highly competent Sri Lankan trade economists (including those who have guided you in the past), will be able to advise you on more important winning strategic policy/implementation and change management options.

They would surely stress the relative importance of developing strategic networking options with supply chains in the region, assisting capable SME’s to upgrade quality/productivity, and enhancing public infrastructure productivity; along with the need to remove para tariffs, enhance ease of doing business, and one stop facilitation center benchmarking services in South Indian states. These can bring big gains, well before dreaming as your short-term goal, leveraging Free Trade Agreements with India, China, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and attempting a high jump by  joining RCEP.

Chandra Jayaratne

Continue Reading

Opinion

Solar and wind power projects

Published

on

There has been a delay in finalising the unit cost for the proposed 500 Mw wind power project initiated by India’s Adani Group. This is surprising and disturbing as there was a news item that the Cabinet had approved the payment of US dollar cents 14.6 per unit, nearly Rs. 50 in our local currency, without the knowledge of the Ministry for Power and Energy or the Ceylon Electricity Board. If so, what is the reason for the delay in going ahead with the construction of the Wind Power Project at Mannar? The snag may be that other private suppliers too are demanding the same payment as agreed with Adani Group.

As I handled this subject at the Ministry of Power and Energy, I still take interest therein, in my retirement. In my earlier letters to the press, I pointed out the negative aspects of wind and solar projects, mainly, Sri Lanka being an island with a limited land area of 65,610 sq. km, where land is required for agriculture as is seen by the desperate attempt of the government offering uncultivated land both state-owned and private to grow more food.

It is said that four to five acres of land is required to produce 1 Mw of electricity. If so, consider the land requirements for major solar parks. In addition, no plant life is possible under these solar panels, which has multiple effects on the atmosphere. The scenic beauty of this country, which attracts tourists will be lost and thereby foreign exchange which we desperately need. This goes for floating solar projects on hydro reservoirs and lakes which the government has already approved contracts to the private sector. In wind farms, there is the danger to birds and flying insects. It is also reported that due to the noise people cannot settle down in adjacent areas.

It is not my intention to discourage the projects to produce power from renewable sources of energy. I intend to make the authorities concerned seek alternative sites, along the sea coast, avoiding beaches frequented by tourists, rooftop solar panels in all buildings. Do not forget we are actively pursuing the connection of our grid to India and when this project materialises, the energy requirement of this country will be eased to a great extent.

It is strange the Ministers in charge of land and agriculture and also tourism have not objected to setting up solar parks and wind farms on land.

G. A. D. Sirimal

Via e-mail

Continue Reading

Trending