| [ Thursday, 09 August 2012, 01:12.23 PM GMT +05:30 ] |
 NASA of United States sent most advanced Mars rover Curiosity towards red planet. |
| This was the historical achievement of United States. Lankan scientist has played important role in this greatest achievement. Dr.Sarath Gunapala served has the senior scientist of NASA. Six major equipments were fixed in the rover space shuttle. DLF laser is the most important equipment . This equipment designed to examine whether Mars owns water in the planet?, it would also help to examine about the methane air in the Mars. Scientist group headed by the Dr.Sarath Gunapala has designed this equipment. Source: LankaSriNews |
Thursday, August 9, 2012
SriLankan plays major role in the rover space shuttle landed in the Mars
I Hope we Concentrate on the Needs of our People Rather than Merely Keeping Happy the International Community
by Prof.Rajiva Wijesinha M.P.
Now that the LLRC Action Plan is out, it has drawn the usual reactions. Those who find good things in it claim that these have been forced on government. Others claim that it does not go far enough. Kusal Perera does both.
Interestingly we do not yet find criticism that it goes too far, though I suspect this viewpoint too will be expressed in time, for the usual reason.
Meanwhile, predictably, we do not find credit given to government, and we certainly do not find expressions of regret that the government has indeed produced a plan, when the claims of the critics were that nothing would be done.
I can think of several instances of such failure to admit to unwarranted suspicions. Firstly, when the war ended, there were claims that we planned to use the army to occupy the North, that we would keep the displaced in camps for several years, and that we would incarcerate the former LTTE combatants. None of these things happened, but no one has granted that their predictions were wrong.
Indeed hardly any credit has been given by the usual critics of government – though I should note that Mr Sumanthiran is an honourable exception with regard to the former combatants, for he has publicly granted that the government did well in that instance.
As part of this programme of predictions of doom, when the LLRC was appointed, it was claimed that they would produce nothing of consequence. I should note though that, when the Report appeared, we found some sort of exception to the rule, in that most critics of government welcomed it. I was at the farewell given by the then Australian High Commissioner on the evening of the report being issued, and found general satisfaction, in some cases accompanied by disbelief, by most members of the diplomatic community present.
Surprisingly, though the statements issued thereafter were more grudging than the immediate reactions, by and large they were very positive.
There were three exceptions. One was the statement of the Centre for Policy Alternatives, which it may be recalled had been amongst the most vociferous critics of government at the event arranged by the American Ambassador to discuss the Darusman Report, along with the representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – who had been invited by Ambassador Butenis, without the knowledge of the Acting UN Resident Representative.
The second was the statement of the TNA, which was doubly unfortunate since it came at a time when the talks between the government and the TNA were going reasonably well. After that there were no more talks.
And, thirdly, there was the American pronouncement, not in Colombo, but by Victoria Nuland in Washington. I found this surprising, because it seemed so vindictive. It was only later that I heard about the performance of the American Ambassador in Geneva who, when the move against us that had been planned in September fell flat, had indicated to our Ambassador there that, come what may, they would get us in March. Obviously welcoming the LLRC Report in December would not have fitted in with that strategy.
I was not entirely surprised by this. We had, after all, been there before. In 2010, when all those who were relieved the war was over but wanted a positive approach to the Tamils realized that Mahinda Rajapaksa was a better bet for this purpose than Sarath Fonseka, there were three astonishing exceptions. One was the TNA, another was the CPA led group of NGOs, which specialized in shouting at us in Geneva and see the agent of the UNHCHR as their natural ally, the third were the Americans, sadly at that stage supported by the British – to the surprise of the European ambassadors who discussed the matter with me afterwards, having known, as one of them put it, all about Sarath Fonseka.
At the time I put it down to Ms Butenis’s naivete, for she was new in Sri Lanka, and liable to be led by the British agenda, which was then being dictated by David Miliband. But later I was told that the Americans were the prime movers, having decided that Sarath Fonseka was their best weapon against the Rajapaksas. Given the new accusatory attitude he took up about war crimes (as opposed to what the Americans had reported to us before they grew up and learnt to love Sarath Fonseka), I can see why they thought him an ideal tool – like so many military men they have used in the past for their various efforts to, not necessarily win friends and influence people, but win influence and control countries.
I was immensely sad about this, because I had been fond of Bob Blake, who had been very positive about our liberation of the East. His aid programme, run by the idealistic Rebecca Cohn, had been a catalyst in restoring not just normalcy there, but also commercial activity. His Public Affairs Officer, Jeff Anderson, was also enormously positive about helping Sri Lanka out of the rut into which terrorism had thrust it, and of course the Defence officials had given seminal support to us to deal with that terrorism.
Blake had told one of my staff at the Peace Secretariat, who asked him about what seemed a different approach in 2009, that he now served a new government. Still, even though he also seems to have played along with the Sarath Fonseka act, I suspect that, had he continued here, he would have modified the new approach so that, while American interests were being served, Sri Lankan interests would not have been treated as unimportant.
What American interests involve became clear to me in a strange episode involving Rebecca Cohn. It occurred after a meeting at the Ministry of Resettlement, at which many of us, including Minister Badiudeen, were worrying about what seemed the slow pace of resettlement. This was now August 2009, and 3 months had passed of the 6, which the Indo-Sri Lankan joint communiqué just after the war had set as the deadline for resttling the bulk of the displaced.
Incidentally, when the charming British Deputy High Commissioner told me that the British had pressed for a resolution in Geneva against us because they were worried about the displaced and so on (ie, the concerns noted in the second paragraph above) I pointed out that they should then have acted like the Indians. They, having supported us solidly to get rid of terrorism on our soil, had, immediately after this occurred, discussed their humanitarian concerns with us, so effectively that we had issued a statement along with them noting how these should be assuaged. This was a more sensible way of influencing us, I said, than claiming in the House of Commons, as Miliband had done, in pursuing his electoral concerns, that the British would ensure we were prosecuted for War Crimes.
At the meeting in the Resettlement Ministry, we decided, after the other foreign representatives had gone, except for Rebecca Cohn, whom we treated as also someone with Sri Lankan concerns at heart, in this case the displaced, that I would write to Mr Basil Rajapaksa, urging that Resettlement be expedited.
I did so, and when he got the letter, he rang me up, and gave me a earful, telling me that I was wrong to doubt him. He had said six months, and he would do it in six months – he paused and added that might be difficult, it would probably be seven or eight, which added to the evident sincerity. I was convinced that he would do what he had pledged, but then he added that I should tell my American friends that they need not worry.
I was surprised at this, and asked what he meant, and he said that he had got a similar letter from Rebecca Cohn before he got mine. I now understood his anger, and tried to make it clear that I had no idea she had written, but I am not sure that he believed me. I then rang Rebecca and asked her whether she had written, and she admitted that she had done so. She added that she had not thought it a good idea, but she had been instructed to do so.
Blake had gone by then, and I believe it was the Deputy, James Manor, a great friend of Mark’s, who had made the decision. I wondered at the reason and can only conclude that the Americans wanted to take credit for the rapid resettlement we all wanted. Reading Wikileaks later I am more than ever convinced of this, and can almost see the cable that would have been sent following resettlement had it begun then, beginning ‘Following representations by post, the Government of Sri Lanka began resettling displaced persons…..’
In short the Americans need to take credit for all good. In a sense we have seen this before, in the finest flower of British imperialism in India, when the British wanted both to dominate, and to be loved.
As Paul Scott so brilliantly shows, in the Raj Quartet, many colonial administrators sincerely believed in their own decency. The problem was, when tough decisions had to be made, British interests came first, and this included standing by those who behaved badly. It was in the end the Merricks and the Brigadier Reids who made the running, with the aggression born of their own insecurities, and I fear that has been exemplified by the dominant Americans in dealings with Sri Lanka over the last three years.
So we had the bizarre performance with Sarath Fonseka, and then the determination over the last couple of years to hold the threat of war crimes against us (even to the extent of trying to suborn serving officers – a wickedness I still find appalling) until we rolled over and put our paws up in submission. I certainly hope we have not done that, but the triumph of the more Americans than the Americans in our Ministry of External Affairs, after the vote in Geneva, indicated that the Americans could feel they had brought us to heel.
Dayan Jayatilleka was threatened with dismissal, Tamara Kunanayagam was removed from Geneva, and the claim was that this showed a drastic shift in foreign policy. That it was accompanied by efforts to alienate us from India, and indeed to blame India for the Geneva vote, was no accident, for obviously bringing us to heel means we must feel dependent for favours only on America, without a primary role for India in our international relations.
Hence indeed the sharp attack on the LLRC Action Plan by Kusal Perera, with its contemptuous references to the meetings of our Foreign Ministry mandarins with Hillary Clinton and her staff after the Geneva vote. Perera’s point is that, in keeping the Americans happy, we have not really seriously addressed the concerns the LLRC Report laid out.
I do not agree with Kusal Perera, for I think much has been done with regard to the problems that must be solved, and we are clearly committed to the compensatory and trust building measures that are recommended. But I have a certain sympathy for his perspective because I believe that, in responding to the American concerns that have been raised, we are not focusing sufficiently on the need to empower all our people, and in particular the Tamils who suffered during the war period.
The order in which the Action Plan has been laid out is symptomatic of this distorted perspective, because we should be highlighting efforts with regard to restoration and restitution, especially as concerns land issues, not the strange vindictive version of accountability that has been in the forefront of attacks on us in recent years (and which the TNA sadly still harps on).
We also need to spend more time and effort on social integration, which is just sketched over. Of course this Plan is only an outline, and it is now up to the agencies identified to spell out what they propose to do, with clear timelines. But I hope we concentrate on the needs of our people, rather than merely keeping happy what is termed the international community – by which our Foreign Ministry leaks to newspapers indicate they mean the Americans.
The Americans can contribute to this, if they allow their better nature to come to the fore, rather than the gamesmanship they have engaged in over the last three years. The Austrian Jewish novelist Stefan Zweig, in Beware of Pity, a title those who now indulge the LTTE rump and the current game of asylum seeking should digest, wrote of the distinction between ‘what we are and what we make ourselves out to be’.
If only the Americans could now take a leaf out of the Indian book, and be firm with the diaspora while encouraging us to move towards reconciliation through restoration and social integration rather than recrimination, they would probably come closer too to achieving their own political ends without conflict – and without plumbing the moral depths themselves
Now that the LLRC Action Plan is out, it has drawn the usual reactions. Those who find good things in it claim that these have been forced on government. Others claim that it does not go far enough. Kusal Perera does both.
Interestingly we do not yet find criticism that it goes too far, though I suspect this viewpoint too will be expressed in time, for the usual reason.
Meanwhile, predictably, we do not find credit given to government, and we certainly do not find expressions of regret that the government has indeed produced a plan, when the claims of the critics were that nothing would be done.
I can think of several instances of such failure to admit to unwarranted suspicions. Firstly, when the war ended, there were claims that we planned to use the army to occupy the North, that we would keep the displaced in camps for several years, and that we would incarcerate the former LTTE combatants. None of these things happened, but no one has granted that their predictions were wrong.
Indeed hardly any credit has been given by the usual critics of government – though I should note that Mr Sumanthiran is an honourable exception with regard to the former combatants, for he has publicly granted that the government did well in that instance.
As part of this programme of predictions of doom, when the LLRC was appointed, it was claimed that they would produce nothing of consequence. I should note though that, when the Report appeared, we found some sort of exception to the rule, in that most critics of government welcomed it. I was at the farewell given by the then Australian High Commissioner on the evening of the report being issued, and found general satisfaction, in some cases accompanied by disbelief, by most members of the diplomatic community present.
Surprisingly, though the statements issued thereafter were more grudging than the immediate reactions, by and large they were very positive.
There were three exceptions. One was the statement of the Centre for Policy Alternatives, which it may be recalled had been amongst the most vociferous critics of government at the event arranged by the American Ambassador to discuss the Darusman Report, along with the representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – who had been invited by Ambassador Butenis, without the knowledge of the Acting UN Resident Representative.
The second was the statement of the TNA, which was doubly unfortunate since it came at a time when the talks between the government and the TNA were going reasonably well. After that there were no more talks.
And, thirdly, there was the American pronouncement, not in Colombo, but by Victoria Nuland in Washington. I found this surprising, because it seemed so vindictive. It was only later that I heard about the performance of the American Ambassador in Geneva who, when the move against us that had been planned in September fell flat, had indicated to our Ambassador there that, come what may, they would get us in March. Obviously welcoming the LLRC Report in December would not have fitted in with that strategy.
I was not entirely surprised by this. We had, after all, been there before. In 2010, when all those who were relieved the war was over but wanted a positive approach to the Tamils realized that Mahinda Rajapaksa was a better bet for this purpose than Sarath Fonseka, there were three astonishing exceptions. One was the TNA, another was the CPA led group of NGOs, which specialized in shouting at us in Geneva and see the agent of the UNHCHR as their natural ally, the third were the Americans, sadly at that stage supported by the British – to the surprise of the European ambassadors who discussed the matter with me afterwards, having known, as one of them put it, all about Sarath Fonseka.
At the time I put it down to Ms Butenis’s naivete, for she was new in Sri Lanka, and liable to be led by the British agenda, which was then being dictated by David Miliband. But later I was told that the Americans were the prime movers, having decided that Sarath Fonseka was their best weapon against the Rajapaksas. Given the new accusatory attitude he took up about war crimes (as opposed to what the Americans had reported to us before they grew up and learnt to love Sarath Fonseka), I can see why they thought him an ideal tool – like so many military men they have used in the past for their various efforts to, not necessarily win friends and influence people, but win influence and control countries.
I was immensely sad about this, because I had been fond of Bob Blake, who had been very positive about our liberation of the East. His aid programme, run by the idealistic Rebecca Cohn, had been a catalyst in restoring not just normalcy there, but also commercial activity. His Public Affairs Officer, Jeff Anderson, was also enormously positive about helping Sri Lanka out of the rut into which terrorism had thrust it, and of course the Defence officials had given seminal support to us to deal with that terrorism.
Blake had told one of my staff at the Peace Secretariat, who asked him about what seemed a different approach in 2009, that he now served a new government. Still, even though he also seems to have played along with the Sarath Fonseka act, I suspect that, had he continued here, he would have modified the new approach so that, while American interests were being served, Sri Lankan interests would not have been treated as unimportant.
What American interests involve became clear to me in a strange episode involving Rebecca Cohn. It occurred after a meeting at the Ministry of Resettlement, at which many of us, including Minister Badiudeen, were worrying about what seemed the slow pace of resettlement. This was now August 2009, and 3 months had passed of the 6, which the Indo-Sri Lankan joint communiqué just after the war had set as the deadline for resttling the bulk of the displaced.
Incidentally, when the charming British Deputy High Commissioner told me that the British had pressed for a resolution in Geneva against us because they were worried about the displaced and so on (ie, the concerns noted in the second paragraph above) I pointed out that they should then have acted like the Indians. They, having supported us solidly to get rid of terrorism on our soil, had, immediately after this occurred, discussed their humanitarian concerns with us, so effectively that we had issued a statement along with them noting how these should be assuaged. This was a more sensible way of influencing us, I said, than claiming in the House of Commons, as Miliband had done, in pursuing his electoral concerns, that the British would ensure we were prosecuted for War Crimes.
At the meeting in the Resettlement Ministry, we decided, after the other foreign representatives had gone, except for Rebecca Cohn, whom we treated as also someone with Sri Lankan concerns at heart, in this case the displaced, that I would write to Mr Basil Rajapaksa, urging that Resettlement be expedited.
I did so, and when he got the letter, he rang me up, and gave me a earful, telling me that I was wrong to doubt him. He had said six months, and he would do it in six months – he paused and added that might be difficult, it would probably be seven or eight, which added to the evident sincerity. I was convinced that he would do what he had pledged, but then he added that I should tell my American friends that they need not worry.
I was surprised at this, and asked what he meant, and he said that he had got a similar letter from Rebecca Cohn before he got mine. I now understood his anger, and tried to make it clear that I had no idea she had written, but I am not sure that he believed me. I then rang Rebecca and asked her whether she had written, and she admitted that she had done so. She added that she had not thought it a good idea, but she had been instructed to do so.
Blake had gone by then, and I believe it was the Deputy, James Manor, a great friend of Mark’s, who had made the decision. I wondered at the reason and can only conclude that the Americans wanted to take credit for the rapid resettlement we all wanted. Reading Wikileaks later I am more than ever convinced of this, and can almost see the cable that would have been sent following resettlement had it begun then, beginning ‘Following representations by post, the Government of Sri Lanka began resettling displaced persons…..’
In short the Americans need to take credit for all good. In a sense we have seen this before, in the finest flower of British imperialism in India, when the British wanted both to dominate, and to be loved.
As Paul Scott so brilliantly shows, in the Raj Quartet, many colonial administrators sincerely believed in their own decency. The problem was, when tough decisions had to be made, British interests came first, and this included standing by those who behaved badly. It was in the end the Merricks and the Brigadier Reids who made the running, with the aggression born of their own insecurities, and I fear that has been exemplified by the dominant Americans in dealings with Sri Lanka over the last three years.
So we had the bizarre performance with Sarath Fonseka, and then the determination over the last couple of years to hold the threat of war crimes against us (even to the extent of trying to suborn serving officers – a wickedness I still find appalling) until we rolled over and put our paws up in submission. I certainly hope we have not done that, but the triumph of the more Americans than the Americans in our Ministry of External Affairs, after the vote in Geneva, indicated that the Americans could feel they had brought us to heel.
Dayan Jayatilleka was threatened with dismissal, Tamara Kunanayagam was removed from Geneva, and the claim was that this showed a drastic shift in foreign policy. That it was accompanied by efforts to alienate us from India, and indeed to blame India for the Geneva vote, was no accident, for obviously bringing us to heel means we must feel dependent for favours only on America, without a primary role for India in our international relations.
Hence indeed the sharp attack on the LLRC Action Plan by Kusal Perera, with its contemptuous references to the meetings of our Foreign Ministry mandarins with Hillary Clinton and her staff after the Geneva vote. Perera’s point is that, in keeping the Americans happy, we have not really seriously addressed the concerns the LLRC Report laid out.
I do not agree with Kusal Perera, for I think much has been done with regard to the problems that must be solved, and we are clearly committed to the compensatory and trust building measures that are recommended. But I have a certain sympathy for his perspective because I believe that, in responding to the American concerns that have been raised, we are not focusing sufficiently on the need to empower all our people, and in particular the Tamils who suffered during the war period.
The order in which the Action Plan has been laid out is symptomatic of this distorted perspective, because we should be highlighting efforts with regard to restoration and restitution, especially as concerns land issues, not the strange vindictive version of accountability that has been in the forefront of attacks on us in recent years (and which the TNA sadly still harps on).
We also need to spend more time and effort on social integration, which is just sketched over. Of course this Plan is only an outline, and it is now up to the agencies identified to spell out what they propose to do, with clear timelines. But I hope we concentrate on the needs of our people, rather than merely keeping happy what is termed the international community – by which our Foreign Ministry leaks to newspapers indicate they mean the Americans.
The Americans can contribute to this, if they allow their better nature to come to the fore, rather than the gamesmanship they have engaged in over the last three years. The Austrian Jewish novelist Stefan Zweig, in Beware of Pity, a title those who now indulge the LTTE rump and the current game of asylum seeking should digest, wrote of the distinction between ‘what we are and what we make ourselves out to be’.
If only the Americans could now take a leaf out of the Indian book, and be firm with the diaspora while encouraging us to move towards reconciliation through restoration and social integration rather than recrimination, they would probably come closer too to achieving their own political ends without conflict – and without plumbing the moral depths themselves
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Can Asia challenge the West
By Shenali Waduge
When people are the same all over the world to understand how the West came to rule the world we need to go back 15,000 years. From nomadism, the world has reached universal settlement, agriculture, large populations, labor, centralized power and a phase we refer to as modern.
Those promoting the West would argue that the West are biologically superior and have better leaders while the others would argue they possess unique cultures and a rich history. Be that as it may the great civilizations evolved from Asia, Mesopotamia, Mexico and Peru. With time while some groups stuck to hunting others built empires after realizing the value of location, geography and climate. Thus it was in South West Asia around 9000 BC that farming began and spread across Europe as well as China and Mexico.
The first city emerged 6000 years ago in Iraq (Mesopotamia), out of sheer jealousy most of these monumental buildings and historic sites have all been brought to ruins by US/NATO air strikes. Soon states turned into empires created armies that moved round the seas resulting in the introduction of taxations. The world’s greatest empires spread from Rome in the West to the Han China in the East when the East became far ahead of the West in terms of innovations.
It was Western Europe inspired by the East’s ships that helped them gain geographical advantage and thus began the modern trade, slavery and the new economy. The Western Europeans discovered, plundered and colonized the Americas moving on to Asia and Africa. Western Europeans were soon involved in production and tapping into the power of fossil fuels. The first industrial revolution emerged in the UK and the British began to dominate the global economy and then came the American dominated economy until the present where the Asian tigers have once more arisen and China, India and hopefully a united Asia will regain its rightful stake.
Undoubtedly, the rise of Asia and the East has rattled the West. The importance of the rise of the East means that Asian societies are rising and Western societies are crumbling. This is not difficult to perceive. The West’s “freedom” slogan has only produced children out of wedlock, low marriages, a trend in homosexuality, complete collapse of the family, overflowing prisons, drug addicts and people addicted to prescription drugs, large numbers drawn to psychiatric therapy and the list goes on. What ails the culture of the West is that it has afforded its people multiple options which have altered the value of faithfulness in love, for children and even taking care of parents once old. These traits have been advanced through Western influenced media into Asian cultures as well.
The West is suffering a financial crisis, massive unemployment etc whilst continuing its policies of invading nations on the pretext of securing human rights, democracy and freedom for these people. This new trend is nothing to be surprised over and in fact it simply reveals that the West is now drained out and is out to secure new wealth. Thus the re-entry to the East to once again squander as they did in colonial times – this time with a touch of sophistication, using corporates to enter as investors and then to walk off with a country’s key assets.
The brutal colonization of the Third World went hand in hand with religious and economic expansion. Once “divide and rule” became the principle and slavery became the norm the rich cultures and civilizations of the East fell apart one after the other not helped in the least by the wars and conflicts that were purposely instigated in a game that the West contrived to ensure they would reign supreme by dividing and disintegrating others whilst bribing Asian leaders to function on behalf of their strategic interests denying rights to their own natives. With time the West developed a model to ensnare and enslave countries further by introducing the World Bank and IMF – always led by a person from the West. These policies were nothing but enslavement of generations of people in taxes where the West end up living off interest paid on the invisible loans given. And we have to be thankful for these loans and grateful to the local leaders for securing them!
The desire to maintain its security at the helm of world governance has prompted these Western nations to go to any lengths to ensure the empires they have built do not fall apart and so “terrorism” was created and with it a drive called “war on terror” which has now been tied to a doctrine called “responsibility to protect” enabling countries to legally enter and take over nations simply on an “assumption”. Leaders of Third World nations especially the politicians have not helped to counter these maneuvers since they have been enticed by commissions and love for money falling prey to the machinations of the Western governments leading them to betray their own nations and their own people. Such local leaders have enabled the West to walk over and completely destroy nations.
It is no secret that the West has been trespassing on other cultures. The British strategy during colonial times was to introduce alcohol to the natives on top of the overall divide and rule policy, the British created divides among castes further dividing the people! Thus the strategy to introduce a non-cultural item into another culture and show that to be far superior than the existing culture has certainly made inroads in Asian towns and cities….just count the number of Asian youth attempting to have size 0 bodies! Asians are always competing to own the latest mobile phone or possess the latest car in the market….these are all western influenced outcomes.
So while spirituality is beckoning most people of the West who are giving up their religions and turning to philosophies like Buddhism and mind calming meditation and yoga, the people of the East are in severe competition attempting to all the while live and act like the West. So we certainly see the lifestyles of the two inter-changing reiterating the need for the wise leaders ruling the East to get to grips with the present scenario and think of how to ensure East does not give up its cultural heritage.
Asians need to decolonize their minds. With Asia’s rise, Asians need to think as Asians and not follow or practice all that is West. It will only facilitate the decay of Asia despite its rise.
We are all aware that the rise of the East is headed by China which means China needs to keep the Asian nations together and to foster greater ties not in the manner that the West has been doing. Certainly China has done a great job sharing its prosperity, signing free trade agreements, using its state services to forge partnerships instead of having corporate take over nations. What China now needs to do is to encourage Asian nations to value Asian cultures because the fall of Asia will come about by following false Western cultures.
What people of the East need to realize and remember at all times is that Modernization is not Westernization.
What is keeping the West at the helm however is the United Nations with its pretext of fostering unity and protecting the world from another war whilst doing nothing to stop mini-wars and conflicts which have been covertly created by the West. The UN is carrying forth the West’s dogma – Reform. Yet does reform have to be according to the West?
It is not difficult to see that the real power of the UN is concentrated among 15 members and 5 permanent members of which China and Russia balances the scales. Yet for most part, the West has dominated every resolution passed in the UN and has managed to manipulate the secretariat to endorse its “new colonialism” strategies.
Yet, without a doubt the 21st century will be Asia’s century and before our eyes we see power shifting. Nevertheless, as of now Asia’s biggest enemy remains Asia and that will continue to be until Asia and Asians realize their own values, respect their culture and cultural heritage and not fall prey to the Western culture that is being steadily incorporated into Asian society through western media channels.
Geography, location and climate was what induced the West to take over the East and tap into its wealth – these very ingredients remains the secrets to Asia’s growth and it is for that very reason that every inch of Asia in terms of its geographical focal points, strategic locations be protected by Asia’s leaders and climate is used to advantage to foster every aspect of sustainability drives possible. With these areas strategically taken care of by Asian leaders led by China, Asia is unlikely to fall. The only challenge to this is India which has become manipulated by the West and is being used as a pimp to tap into countries of Asia in order to keep the pro-US agenda in tact and US very much part of whatever Asia decides. Whilst Indians as a whole may not be aware of this and are unlikely to agree to Western influence, the reality remains that India is controlled by a handful of aristocrat Brahmins. It is time India woke up to the realization that Asia’s fall will come because of India compromising Asia – otherwise Asia will be a force to reckon with.
- Asian Tribune -
U.S. Welcomes National Action Plan
Fri, 2012-08-03 01:01 — editor
Colombo, 03 August (Asiantribune.com):
The United States welcomes the release of the National Action Plan by
the Government of Sri Lanka.
We have long encouraged the full implementation of the recommendations
outlined by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. We believe that
full implementation of the National Action Plan will benefit all citizens of
Sri Lanka by furthering long-term reconciliation and lasting peace.
- Asian Tribune -
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Sri Lanka arrests Tamil politician over human smuggling
| English.news.cn 2012-07-25 15:05:09 |
COLOMBO, July 25 (Xinhua) -- The police in Sri Lanka on Wednesday
arrested a Tamil politician and another suspect over a human smuggling
operation.
Police media spokesman Ajith Rohana told Xinhua the Tamil politician is a member of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and is a candidate for the local council elections in the east scheduled for September.
"Over the past few days there were reports of attempts by people to go overseas by boat illegally. We had reported how the Tamil diaspora may also be involved in human smuggling and that has now been confirmed with the arrest of the tow key suspects," the police spokesman said.
He said that the two suspects were believed to have been involved in attempts to send several Tamils to Australia by boat.
The two suspects were arrested from the eastern town of Trincomalee where several attempts were made in the recent days by asylum seekers to head to Australia by boat.
Rohana said that the suspects had taken money from the Tamils to send them overseas through illegal means.
He said that they are looking for more suspects who are alleged to be involved in the human smuggling racket.
Last week government spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella said that the government suspected the rise in human smuggling attempts were part of an organized attempt by interested groups to tarnish the country's image.
Despite the risks of being caught by Sri Lankan authorities or perishing during their journey, many continue to risk their lives in exchange to reach Australia by boat.
According to the Australian media over 1,300 Sri Lankans illegally reached Australia by boat since January 2012.
The Sri Lankan navy and the police have meanwhile arrested hundreds of others over the past several weeks as they attempted to make the treacherous journey by boat.
Police media spokesman Ajith Rohana told Xinhua the Tamil politician is a member of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and is a candidate for the local council elections in the east scheduled for September.
"Over the past few days there were reports of attempts by people to go overseas by boat illegally. We had reported how the Tamil diaspora may also be involved in human smuggling and that has now been confirmed with the arrest of the tow key suspects," the police spokesman said.
He said that the two suspects were believed to have been involved in attempts to send several Tamils to Australia by boat.
The two suspects were arrested from the eastern town of Trincomalee where several attempts were made in the recent days by asylum seekers to head to Australia by boat.
Rohana said that the suspects had taken money from the Tamils to send them overseas through illegal means.
He said that they are looking for more suspects who are alleged to be involved in the human smuggling racket.
Last week government spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella said that the government suspected the rise in human smuggling attempts were part of an organized attempt by interested groups to tarnish the country's image.
Despite the risks of being caught by Sri Lankan authorities or perishing during their journey, many continue to risk their lives in exchange to reach Australia by boat.
According to the Australian media over 1,300 Sri Lankans illegally reached Australia by boat since January 2012.
The Sri Lankan navy and the police have meanwhile arrested hundreds of others over the past several weeks as they attempted to make the treacherous journey by boat.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
The 13 victims – progenitors of the 30 years conflict
By-Leel Pathirana
July 23rd of 1983 narrate us the turning point of the 30 years ended war in Sri Lanka with the LTTE terrorist. Much talk about the subsequent incident happened in July 25th (Black July) and less talk about what happened on two nights back on July 23rd. Number 13 is considered a bad number or inauspicious mostly among Europe and America. There’s no thirteenth floor neither in the high storied buildings there and nor in hotels can be found room number thirteen.
Outbreak of the Sri Lankan thirty years separatist war was also begun from the 13, when the LTTE detonated a landmine on 23rd of July 1983 at Thrunelveli, Palai road in the Jaffna Peninsula. The victims were thirteen soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army, when they were moving in the night, at 23:45 hrs. However, killing of the thirteen soldiers SLA (Sri Lankan Army) became a turning-point and led to a three decade long separatist terrorist war. The conflict ended after losing more than one hundred thousand lives.
Under the post war Sri Lanka, we have achieved a military victory and the peace can be built among the hearts of both Sinhalese and Tamil through a genuine reconciliation mechanism plus a political solution for the minority Tamils. But the solution should be a Sri Lankan Model and not an alien or so-called solution proposed by the Westerners.
The aim of this article is to take a look back about the beginning of the conflict, particularly for the young generation of Sri Lanka who has born after 1983. But the reader should not be confused over this article with the North-East crisis of Sri Lanka and it’s root causes.
Velupillai Prabhakaran comes from Valvetiturai, (a place said to be a smugglers’ paradise) a small port town situated in Jaffna Peninsula and all illegal goods were brought by boats from South India and unloaded there. Having born there, he was engaged in smuggling business in the mid seventies. However there are no details available about his school life or education.
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was founded on the 05th March 1976 by Velupillai Prabhakaran and the other founder members were Charles Lucas Anthony alias Colonel Seelan, Sathasivam Krishnakumar alias colonel Kittu and Aruna. After couple of years by 1978, Gopalaswami Mahendrarajah alias Mahattaya together with Ragavan and Anand too joined the Tamil separatists outfit.
In the beginning, armed with primary fire arms started to rob banks in order to find the funds for their organization. Subsequently, they started to assassinate what they called their opponents and the first victim was a distinguished political personality from their own minority Tamil, a former Member of Parliament and the Mayor of Jaffna, Mr. Alfred Duraiappa. He was gunned down by Prabakaran himself (?) on the 27th July 1976, in a Hindu temple though he was a catholic.
By the beginning of the eighties, they were well organized and began to launch guerilla attacks against the Sri Lankan Army. In their initial hostility campaign of Sri Lankan artillery Corporal, H.G.W.Hewawasam from Kuruvita and Corporal H.M.P.Thisera of Mathugama were killed on October 1981 on the KKS road in Jaffna. The attack was carried out by Charles Antony alias Seelan and some sources say he spat on the slain soldier’s face. In a separate incident, Sergeant Nihal Jayaweera also killed in Killinochchi same month on 23rd October 981.
However, Sri Lankan Army intelligence unit started monitoring the activities of Charles Anthony alias Seelan. Finally, on the 15th July 1983, Charles Lucas Anthony alias colonel Seelan was killed in a close encounter with the Sri Lankan Army at Meesalai, Thennamarachchi area located in the Jaffna Peninsula. The man who hailed from Trincomalee and being a catholic was a member of the original group that founded the LTTE and regarded as the confidante of the leadership and was part of a triumvirate that ran the LTTE in the north when the Tiger Leader was away in India. The other two were Mahattaya and Kittu.
There was a controversy over the death of Col. Seelan. While in a hideout at a coconut grove at Meesalai, Army ambushed the place where Seelan (Charles Anthony) Aruna and Anand were hiding. During the shoot out in which Aanand was killed on the spot, though Seelan and Aruna fought their way through but Seelan was critically injured. As the soldiers continued their chase, the wounded Seelan ordered Aruna to shoot him dead and get away with the weapons. But Aruna was reluctant and did not agree. After some heated argument he had no choice left, but to obey Seelan and shot him dead and escaped.
Praba, after being wedded to Mathivathany Erambu on 1984, both are Hindus, his first son was born in 1985, the tiger leader named his son Charles Antony in the fond memory of his confidante and the deputy.
After learning the fate of Seelan, Prabha was furious and mad. He wanted to take revenge on the Sri Lankan Army. Exactly after eighth day of the death of Seelan, Chellakili and Kittu planned an attack. They ambushed an army patrol “ Four Four Bravo” and detonated Army vehicle in the night at 23:45 hrs on 23rd July 1983 at Thirunelveli post office junction at Palali Road, Jaffna.
In the ambush, thirteen soldiers were killed, including an officer. It is said that even after the blast, some soldiers were alive, being critically injured. Both Prabha and Kittu approached the scene and shot the wounded soldiers in point blank range to make clear that all were dead.
The death of the thirteen soldiers triggered off anti-Tamil violence on 25th July 1983 (Black July 83) and led directly to an outbreak of the separatist war in Sri Lanka.
The 13 soldiers who sacrifice their lives were:
1. Lieutenant- A.P.N.E. Vaas Gunawardene
2. Staff Sergeant- S.A. Thilakarathne of Bandaragama
3. Sergeant- Guruge Premasiri Preyra of Homagama
4. Corporal-G.P. Perera of Battaramulla
5. Lance Corporal- S.S.Amarasinghe of Ganemulla
6. Lance Corporal- K.D.Karunarathne of Kaduwela
7. Lance Corporal-A.T.Wijesiri of Kegalla
8. Lance Corporal- S. Gamini Rajathilaka of Kegalla
9. Lance Corporal- M.B.D. Sunil of Nawalapitiya
10. Lance Corporal- A. Joseph Remijayas Fernado of Puttalam
11. Lance Corporal-D.M. Athula Dissanayake of Kandy
12. Lance Corporal-B.D. Robert of Kalutara
13. Lance Corporal-M.A. Sarath Chandralal Manatunge of Polgahawela
This incident spread every nook and corner of the island like a wildfire and the people of the south were furious. The bodies of the thirteen soldiers were air ferried from Jaffna to Colombo on the day after (24th) and the arrangements were made by then the Government to hand over the bodies of the soldiers to their respective families. But having done that, the Government was under impression once those bodies being taken to their villages, the situation may go worse since the people were about to react.
Finally, the government changed the arrangements and decided to give a State Funeral on 25th for all the soldiers at Colombo cemetery. At the time the bodies of the thirteen soldiers being buried, the impatience angry crowds started to react. As reprisal, properties of the Tamils in Colombo and suburb were set ablaze and some Tamils were killed by the violent crowds.
The anti Tamil violence spread to the other part of the island, where Tamils lived. Though the curfew was imposed, mobs showed scant respect and boldly carried out attacks on the Tamils and their properties. Thirty five Tamil prisoners were killed inside Colombo’s Welikada prison on 25th and on the 27th claiming further eighteen prisoners.
Most of the damages were done by the state sponsored mob who acted under the direction of some ministers of the then United National Party government.
On the 30th July 1983, by a special Gazette notification, the Government banned unlawfully and undemocratically, three leftwing political parties of Sri Lanka and alleged that they had been involved anti Tamil violence. They were JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna-Marxist-Leninist), Communist Party of Sri Lanka and the Samasamaja Party (Troskyist). Orders went to all the police stations throughout the island to arrest the leader of the JVP, Rohana Wijeweera (Who was later killed after seven years on 13th November 1989 when he was arrested) and the other two leaders of the communist party and Samasamaja Party. But the government’s top priority was to arrest the leader of the JVP and less attention was paid to other two leaders. The ban on the Communist party and the Samasamaja party were lifted after few months, but the ban on JVP continued up to eleven years till 1994.
Finally, the killing of thirteen soldiers and the subsequent anti Tamil violence on 25th July led to the creation of two insurgencies in Sri Lanka. Number one was, forming a Terrorist group, the LTTE which became world’s ruthless terrorist group fighting for separate home land in northern Sri Lanka, and ended after almost thirty years loosing uncountable number of lives.
The other was, launching the second JVP insurgency 1988/89 fighting against social injustice, Indian intervention and restore democracy for a united Sri Lanka for both Sinhalese majority and Tamil minority, was also ended up in a fiasco losing more than sixty thousand lives. Both were the consequences of the legacy, left by the European Colonialism in post-independent Ceylon.
- Asian Tribune -
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Lanka’s HR report to UNHRC
Posted by admin on July 22, 2012
Sri Lanka’s report for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in November at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva will be sent to the Council tomorrow to be studied by some member states.
Government Minister and special envoy on human rights Mahinda Samarasinghe said that the report was earlier given to President Mahinda Rajapaksa for his approval and it will be sent to Geneva tomorrow.
He said that three countries including India are expected to study the document and make recommendations before it is placed before the council during the UPR session in November.
The efforts taken by the government to address human rights related issues will be the focus of the UPR session in November.
Samarasinghe says Sri Lanka has addressed most of the outstanding issues and is confident of receiving the backing of most member states during the UPR session.
http://colombogazette.com/lankas-hr-report-to-unhrc/
Sri Lanka’s report for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in November at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva will be sent to the Council tomorrow to be studied by some member states.
Government Minister and special envoy on human rights Mahinda Samarasinghe said that the report was earlier given to President Mahinda Rajapaksa for his approval and it will be sent to Geneva tomorrow.
He said that three countries including India are expected to study the document and make recommendations before it is placed before the council during the UPR session in November.
The efforts taken by the government to address human rights related issues will be the focus of the UPR session in November.
Samarasinghe says Sri Lanka has addressed most of the outstanding issues and is confident of receiving the backing of most member states during the UPR session.
http://colombogazette.com/lankas-hr-report-to-unhrc/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)